The firm had instructed senior advocate S S Gandhi in the matter which was brought before the Delhi High Court to challenge the 2007 order of a metropolitan magistrate issuing directions for registration of FIR (first information report) against Indraprastha Medical Corporation Hospital.
Bhasin & Co, senior associate Ranjan Jha had assisted Gandhi in securing the judgement against the Government of Delhi.
While dismissing the complaint filed against the hospital company it was held in the judgement that the offence of medical criminal negligence cannot be fastened on the company since the company can neither treat nor operate a patient on its own.
However, the court also took the view that the hospital must account for an administrative negligence or a negligence arising out of lack of basic infrastructure.
Bhasin & Co said in a statement: “The judgment is significant as the Delhi High Court has affirmed the settled law of corporate personality holding that company is only a juristic person i.e. a creature of law bound by its memorandum and articles of association and not a natural person, and therefore, does not have a mind or is capable to form any mens rea or guilty intention as required in criminal acts.”
“Thus, a company cannot be indictable for offences, like murder, hurt, cheating, bigamy, perjury, etc, which can only be committed by a human individual or for offences punishable with imprisonment of corporal punishment.”
Comments
It is also interesting to note that Mr Lalit Bhasin had said on LI: "The legal profession in so-called advanced countries is a product of Industrial Revolution whereas in India it is a product of Independence Revolution." Please explain to me how Bhasin & Co represented the financially deprived underdog in this case. This case proves that Indian law firms are no different from foreign law firms. Neither are Gandhian organisations.
Frankly, a patient should not care about the doctor having been jailed or not, he/ she should be worried about monetary compensation and hospitals are considered as the source of such compensation. Simple economic logic - hospitals profit from treatment of patiensts so should be liable to pay civil damages if something goes wrong.
As an aside: What about the impact of this case on the Bhopal Gas case and the like?
Want to change the name of LI to "LB - Mouthpiece of SILF?"
Keep up the good work Kian... Indian legal sector today is a far more transparent place because of LI.
Mr Bhasin, I think you owe us an answer.
http://www.freedom-run.co.uk/
of couse as long as you do not allow proper defense to the victims- be it of this case or Bhopal or any nuclear dispute in the future. This is a right example of why you need 'conditional fees' and allow foreign experts to pratice.
conditional fees will be beneficial both for the clients and lawyers.
read up some books of ethics and jurisprudence. the reason why condditional fees is not allowed in india is beacuse lawyers are supposed to be officers of the court and all work done by them should be for the furtherence of justice. this is a logical argument against conditional fees expected from a person who has read the law.
by the way, the stigma of being a pimp is in what he deals in. defined your way, every any person who represents another person is a pimp. defined ur way all investment banks are pimps. wondering how will u classify lawyers who work for them??
For litigating lawyers, however, I do not know whether it may appear to be unethical for contingent fees and be reduced to becoming ambulance chasers.
My personal views....and I am not a pimp (whichever way you interpret the word).