Shruti Desai


June 22, 2023

INTRODUCTION AI is a blessing for health care. When we are scared of an AI in such an arena if I say it’s a boon then of course I must explain how. In the Western world healthcare is good but the patient has to wait for days or months. While in my Country India, it’s immediate.  We just get admission and the next day the patient is operated on. In the West, there is a shortage of human resources. Many countries issue visas for medical and para-medical services with benefits attached. So AI can be a blessing in disguise for the West. Let’s analyze how. FACTS AND TECHNOLOGY In India, for various types of surgeries, doctors are already using robots. These surgeries are complicated like cancer, dental surgeries,  stone, spine, etc. These surgeries are affordable because of the use of robots by doctors.  It’s called robotic surgery.  India is now a medical hub because of its competitive price, availability of doctors, immediate care, and affordability. If AI is brought in, in the medical field many lives can be saved as there will be immediate attention given to the patient. This will help even a person who is going through pain to get early relief. Nowadays there is much discussion on new invention of an AI “eye”. If this EYE is introduced in the medical field then we do not require huge machines like X-rays and MRIs. This will save cost and also space. Especially in metro cities space crunch is always an issue. I understand that this EYE technology will give an instant cause of disease and doctors can treat patients fast. Many patients are scared of huge machines which catch their body in. So this issue of scare will also be resolved. DISCUSSION But with blessings, there are shortcomings too. The question arises when robotic surgery fails. Who is responsible for error done by robots? The hospital? The doctor who was in command of the robot? or the company which designed and activated software and algorithms? Usually, if a surgery is done by a human being a certified licensed surgeon then of course he is liable. But in the case of robotic surgery malfunction maker of the robot company is responsible. Certain fundamental laws are dictums about liability. But it needs to be codified. Certain resolutions are passed by the UN but it is in the nascent stage. CONCLUSION Use technology for the benefit of humankind. As such rockets and bombs are also technology but it’s for destruction. During surgery if the internet signal is lost who is responsible? Well, human race is ready for AI? Surgeries were done even in ancient India. Sushrut Samhita speaks of it. Another question therefore arise is do we need AI? All these questions will be answered with the passage of time. But at present whatever inventions are there in the market it’s a blessing to humankind SHRUTI DESAI 22th June 2023              

Read more


September 9, 2021

This interesting issue came up before Delhi High Court in Amazon.Com Nv Investment vs Future Coupons Private Limited & ors passed on 18 March, 2021 Three important questions arose for consideration before Delhi High Court :- What is the legal status of an Emergency Arbitrator i.e. whether the Emergency Arbitrator is an arbitrator and whether the interim order of the Emergency Arbitrator is an order under Section 17 (1) and is enforceable under 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act? Observed: Section 2(8) of the Indian Arbitration Act 1996 expressly provides that where Part I of the Indian Arbitration Act 1996 refers to an ―agreement of the parties‖, such agreement shall include the arbitration rules referred to in the parties’ agreement. In this way, the Indian Arbitration Act 1996 provides that any arbitration rules agreed to by the parties are incorporated into the arbitration agreement. Unless expressly excluded, it is trite that the parties cannot resile from the terms of their arbitration agreement, including their agreement to allow either party to request the appointment of an emergency arbitrator. Further, Section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act 1996, which empowers an arbitral tribunal to grant interim reliefs, does not preclude or intimate that parties cannot agree to institutional rules which allow recourse to emergency arbitration. In the absence of a mandatory prohibition contained in the Indian Arbitration Act 1996 or public policy constraints, the parties may agree to any arbitral procedure. Whether the Emergency Arbitrator misapplied the Group of Companies doctrine which applies only to proceedings under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act? Held The Indian Arbitration Act 1996, does not preclude parties from agreeing to arbitrate under institutional rules that allow either party to request appropriate reliefs from an emergency arbitrator. The Respondents’ references to the 246th Law Commission Report do not assist its submissions on this issue in a meaningful way. It is just as plausible that Parliament, in its wisdom, did not consider it necessary to amend the Indian Arbitration Act 1996 to make a specific reference to emergency arbitrators because it was legally unnecessary – that is to say, it might have been an instance of the Law Commission making a suggestion to gild the lily. There was no need for statutory recognition if the courts and case law did not find this a problematic issue. Indeed, given the prevalence, even then, in the employment and use of this useful procedure internationally, this is likely to have been the case. It is also noteworthy that the power to appoint an emergency arbitrator is currently recognized in a number of domestic Indian arbitration institution rules, including (a) the Delhi International Arbitration Centre of the Delhi High Court; (b) the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration; and (c) the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre, all of which include, under their rules, provisions for emergency arbitration and set out the appointment process, applicable procedures, and timing as well as the powers of an emergency arbitrator. Emergency Arbitrators are recognised under the Indian Arbitration Framework The Claimant rightly asserts that the Respondents’ insistence that the notion of emergency arbitration is […]

Read more