English

Who is an Ombudsman?

Advertisements
Advertisements

Question

Who is an Ombudsman?

Options

  • A judicial officer designated to receive complaints against the violation of the rights of citizens.

  • An official who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints of maladministration or a violation of rights.

  • An elected representative of the people to investigate and address the complaints of maladministration or a violation of rights.

  • A specially designated police officer assigned with the power to investigate and address the complaints of maladministration or a violation of rights.

MCQ
Advertisements

Solution

An official who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints of maladministration or a violation of rights.

Explanation:

Ombudsman is a person who investigates complaints made about his or her employer. A person who works for the government and who investigates citizen complaints made about the government is an example of an ombudsman. Hence option 'An official who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints of maladministration or a violation of rights'. is the most appropriate statement.

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
2017-2018 (May) Set 1

RELATED QUESTIONS

Principle: Everyone has the right of private defense to defend his body and property by use of reasonable force unless that person had time to have recourse to the protection of public authorities.

Facts: X receives information at 5.00 pm that Y along with few friends are planning to burn his crop at midnight which is ready to be harvested. He does not inform the village Police Station which was just one kilometer away. He gathers his family members and directs them to collect some weapons in the form of swords and lathis to protect his field/crop. At around 11.00 pm Y and his aides attack the crop and a severe fight ensues wherein Y is seriously injured. 


The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:

Principle: An offer made by one party when accepted by another makes it a contract.

Transactions:
1. P offered to sell his house for Rs. 20 lakhs to R; R told P that he was interested to buy a house for 15 lakhs only.
2. C was looking for a house for not more than 25 lakhs; P informed C that his house was available for 20 lakhs.
3. K wanted to buy some old furniture; L told K that he would sell his furniture for Rs. 10, 000.
4. R advertised to sell his old car for a price of Rs. Three lakhs; S found the advertisement and offered to buy it for Rs. 2 lakhs 50 thousand; R agrees to sell it to S.

Which among the above is actually a contract?


Directions: Read the statement and on the basis of that, choose the most appropriate course of action(s) given below the statement.

Statement: Official data show more people died on Indian roads in 2016 than in 2015; UP and Tamil Nadu accounted for the largest numbers of fatalities.

Courses of Action:

I. The government should make a policy regulating the manufacturing of automobiles for private use.
II. The government should take steps to create awareness among the public about road safety.
III. Accidents can be avoided if the Government takes steps to make good roads.
IV. To eliminate accidents completely the Government should impose stringent punishments for traffic violations.


Legal Principle: Parents are not liable for wrongs committed by their children unless they provide the opportunity for such wrongful acts to be committed by their children.

Fact Situation: Sunil, a minor, takes the keys to his father’s car from the tabletop where his father keeps it, drives the car on the public road and hits a pedestrian who gets injured.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?


Legal Principle: ‘ Audi alteram partem’ is a Latin phrase which means ‘hear the other side’. It is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing.

Fact Situation: Sanjay, in Delhi, is accused of theft and brought before the Court. The magistrate discovers that Sanjay is mute.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?


Who among the following was the first Chief Information Commissioner of India?


Alexander and Alexandra have consensual sex. Alexander knows that he has the sexually transmitted disease genital herpes but he does not tell Alexandra. She later contracts herpes. Which of the following most accurately states the likely outcome if Alexandra sues Alexander in the tort of battery?


Consent defines as


PRINCIPLE Where a dangerous article escapes, the owner shall be strictly liable for the harm which comes without being at fault.

FACTS Bhopal Gas Co. was in the business of manufacturing chemicals that produced a large amount of toxic residue. As per procedure, they used to store the waste in insulated boxes and hand it over to the collecting van of the municipal corporation once a week. After one such collection, the van driver drove negligently resulting in the escape and spilling of the contents of one of the waste barrels. Is Bhopal Gas Co. liable?


Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:

Legal Principles:
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
3. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity. pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.

Facts: 
Dr. Hemant had for 18 years operated a clinic and hospital for the treatment of ENT. Dr. Karan operated a renal clinic in which patients receive haemo-dialysis on the floor above Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Karan was found liable for obnoxious fumes emitting from the clinic which escaped downwards into Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Hemant, his staff and patients were found to have suffered substantial damage ranging from skin diseases, red and swollen eyes, headaches, lethargy and breathing difficulties. Decide whether Karan is liable?


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×