Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do is essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure.Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.Q. Amit was prescribed a medicine which caused allergy in his body. When asked about his medical history Amit did not mention the drugs he was allergic to. Amit sued the hospital and asked for compensation due to the problems he had to suffer.a)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he did not mention the drugs he was allergic to.b)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he has a culpable mind to extract money from the hospital using the criminal offense clause as a tool.c)Amit can sue the hospital as he suffered very badly due to the allergies.d)Amit can sue the hospital as the doctor was negligent in prescribing medicine.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do is essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure.Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.Q. Amit was prescribed a medicine which caused allergy in his body. When asked about his medical history Amit did not mention the drugs he was allergic to. Amit sued the hospital and asked for compensation due to the problems he had to suffer.a)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he did not mention the drugs he was allergic to.b)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he has a culpable mind to extract money from the hospital using the criminal offense clause as a tool.c)Amit can sue the hospital as he suffered very badly due to the allergies.d)Amit can sue the hospital as the doctor was negligent in prescribing medicine.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do is essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure.Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.Q. Amit was prescribed a medicine which caused allergy in his body. When asked about his medical history Amit did not mention the drugs he was allergic to. Amit sued the hospital and asked for compensation due to the problems he had to suffer.a)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he did not mention the drugs he was allergic to.b)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he has a culpable mind to extract money from the hospital using the criminal offense clause as a tool.c)Amit can sue the hospital as he suffered very badly due to the allergies.d)Amit can sue the hospital as the doctor was negligent in prescribing medicine.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do is essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure.Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.Q. Amit was prescribed a medicine which caused allergy in his body. When asked about his medical history Amit did not mention the drugs he was allergic to. Amit sued the hospital and asked for compensation due to the problems he had to suffer.a)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he did not mention the drugs he was allergic to.b)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he has a culpable mind to extract money from the hospital using the criminal offense clause as a tool.c)Amit can sue the hospital as he suffered very badly due to the allergies.d)Amit can sue the hospital as the doctor was negligent in prescribing medicine.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do is essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure.Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.Q. Amit was prescribed a medicine which caused allergy in his body. When asked about his medical history Amit did not mention the drugs he was allergic to. Amit sued the hospital and asked for compensation due to the problems he had to suffer.a)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he did not mention the drugs he was allergic to.b)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he has a culpable mind to extract money from the hospital using the criminal offense clause as a tool.c)Amit can sue the hospital as he suffered very badly due to the allergies.d)Amit can sue the hospital as the doctor was negligent in prescribing medicine.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do is essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure.Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.Q. Amit was prescribed a medicine which caused allergy in his body. When asked about his medical history Amit did not mention the drugs he was allergic to. Amit sued the hospital and asked for compensation due to the problems he had to suffer.a)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he did not mention the drugs he was allergic to.b)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he has a culpable mind to extract money from the hospital using the criminal offense clause as a tool.c)Amit can sue the hospital as he suffered very badly due to the allergies.d)Amit can sue the hospital as the doctor was negligent in prescribing medicine.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do is essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure.Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.Q. Amit was prescribed a medicine which caused allergy in his body. When asked about his medical history Amit did not mention the drugs he was allergic to. Amit sued the hospital and asked for compensation due to the problems he had to suffer.a)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he did not mention the drugs he was allergic to.b)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he has a culpable mind to extract money from the hospital using the criminal offense clause as a tool.c)Amit can sue the hospital as he suffered very badly due to the allergies.d)Amit can sue the hospital as the doctor was negligent in prescribing medicine.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do is essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure.Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.Q. Amit was prescribed a medicine which caused allergy in his body. When asked about his medical history Amit did not mention the drugs he was allergic to. Amit sued the hospital and asked for compensation due to the problems he had to suffer.a)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he did not mention the drugs he was allergic to.b)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he has a culpable mind to extract money from the hospital using the criminal offense clause as a tool.c)Amit can sue the hospital as he suffered very badly due to the allergies.d)Amit can sue the hospital as the doctor was negligent in prescribing medicine.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do is essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure.Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.Q. Amit was prescribed a medicine which caused allergy in his body. When asked about his medical history Amit did not mention the drugs he was allergic to. Amit sued the hospital and asked for compensation due to the problems he had to suffer.a)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he did not mention the drugs he was allergic to.b)Amit cannot sue the hospital as he has a culpable mind to extract money from the hospital using the criminal offense clause as a tool.c)Amit can sue the hospital as he suffered very badly due to the allergies.d)Amit can sue the hospital as the doctor was negligent in prescribing medicine.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.