AILET Legal-Aptitude: Questions 66 - 67 of 152
Get 1 year subscription: Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 152 questions. Access all new questions we will add tracking exam-pattern and syllabus changes. View Sample Explanation or View Features.
Rs. 150.00 or
Question number: 66
Appeared in Year: 2013
LEGAL PRINCIPLES: 1) Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’ s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. 2) Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A takes umbrella belonging to Z out of Z’s possession in good faith, believing at the time when he took it, that the property belongs to himself. His wife points out after some days that the umbrella does not belong to them but to Z. After coming to know that, A dishonestly keeps the umbrella.
A and his wife are guilty of criminal misappropriation
A is guilty of theft
A is guilty of criminal misappropriation
A is guilty of criminal breach of trust
Question number: 67
Appeared in Year: 2014
1. Medical professionals are not immune from liability in tort on ground of negligence.
2. Services rendered to a patient by a doctor (except when given free of charge by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment) fall in the definition of “service under the Consumer Protection Act. In case of negligence, the doctors are liable in tort as well as under the Consumer Protection Act.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A was the only child of his parents. Once he had high fever and his parents called a doctor at home. This doctor used to work at a respectable hospital in Delhi. The doctor administered certain medicines and asked the nurse to stay with him for the night and administer to him a chloroquine injection. This injection was generally not suitable for young children. The nurse, without prior test, followed instructions of the doctor and gave the injection. As a result of an allergic reaction, the child died. The parents sued the nurse and the doctor.
This is not a service; hence not liable.
Doctor was not liable as he came to their home to give personal treatment and was not in the Hospital
Doctor was rendering a “service”; hence liable to pay compensation.
Only the nurse is liable.