Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option
Principle: When a person consented to an act to be done by another, he cannot claim any damages resulting from doing that act, provided the act done is the same for which consent is given.
Facts: 'P' submitted written consent to a surgeon 'S' for undergoing a surgical operation for removal of appendicitis. The surgeon while doing surgery also removed the gall bladder of 'A':
विकल्प
'P' is required to pay expenses for surgery for Appendicitis but n ot for Gall Bladder.
'P' is not bound to pay expenses of the surgery
'P' can claim damages from 'S'
'P' cannot claim damages from 'S'
Advertisements
उत्तर
'P' can claim damages from 'S'
Explanation:
Written consent for surgery was given by 'P' to surgeon 'S'. The consent was given only for the act of removal of appendicitis. However, 'S' also removed the gall bladder of 'A' for which no consent was given. This act was therefore carried out without the permission and approval of 'P'. In this case, 'S' acted sans valid consent. There is disobedience to the right of the patient's autonomy. (Ram Bihari Lal v Dr. J. N. Srivastava. AIR 1985 MP 150).
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Disagreement between the two Houses of Indian Parliament is finally resolved through
Principle: A condition to a contract can also be complied with after the happening of the event to which such a condition is attached.
Facts: 'A' promises to pay Rs. 5000 to 'B' on the condition that he shall marry with the consent of 'C', 'D' and 'E'. 'B' marries without the consent of 'C', 'D' and 'E', but obtains their consent after the marriage.
Principle:
1. Wagering agreements are void.
2. Collateral agreements to wagering contracts are valid.
Facts: XYZ Bank lends Rs. 40, 000 to Sabu in order to enable him to award as a prize to Randeep who is the winner of horse race. Later Sabu refuses to pay the prize stating that horse racing is wagering agreement. Can XYZ Bank recover money from Sabu?
Mark the best option:
Facts: Manohar and Dev are childhood friends. One day while ploughing the field they have an argument and end up in blows. Satish, another farmer, has to intervene and separate them. Manohar swears that he will take revenge. In the evening Satishtells Dev that Manohar wants to reach a settlement and asks him to wait near the Mukhiya’s farmland behind the rose bush. Dev sits behind the bush and waits. Meanwhile, Satish goes to Manohar and tells him that wild animals have attacked theMukhiya’s farmland and asks Manohar to bring his shotgun to scare the animals away. On reaching the farm, Satish shouts out loudly that he has spotted a leopard behind the rose bush and asks Manohar to fire at the bush. Manohar fires two rounds. The bullet hits and kills Dev.
Principle: Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Rape involves an offence which is against:
Development of the law of tort has taken through:
Mark the best option:
Principles: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it, is a nuisance in law of tort.
Facts: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant's shop who having a licence to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only 1 kg of onion per ration card. The queues extended on to the highway and l also caused some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers filed a suit for nuisance against the defendant. which one of the following decisions will be correct in this suit?
Decide:
What is the essential difference that makes the crime of assault differ from the tort of assault?
PRINCIPLE An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of the land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
FACTS Ramesh owns an acre of land on the outskirts of Sullurpeta, Andhra Pradesh. The Government of India launches its satellites into space frequently from Sriharikota, near Sullurpeta. The Government of India does not deny that once the satellite launch has travelled the distance of almost 7000 kilometres it passes over Ramesh's property. Ramesh files a case claiming that the Government of India has violated his property rights by routing its satellite over his property, albeit 7000 kilometers directly above it.
Applying the principle to the case you would decide
Principle: One has to compensate another for the injury caused due to his wrongful act. The liability to compensate is reduced to the extent the latter has contributed to the injury through his own negligence, This is the underlying principle of contributory negligence.
Facts: Veerappa owns a farm at a distance of half a furlong from the railway track. He stored in his land the stacks of dried up straw after the cultivation as is normal in farming. One day when the train was passing through the track, the driver was negligently operating the locomotive by allowing it to emit large quantities of spark. The high wind, normal in open fields, carried the sparks to the stacks stored by Veerappa and the stacks caught fire thereby causing extensive damage. Veerappa filed a suit against the Railways claiming damages. The Railways while acknowledging liability alleged contributory negligence on the part of Veerappa.
