Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

One Y suffered serious injuries in a railway accident. He was assisted by a surgeon, X, on the evidence of whose Y succeeded in recovering heavy damages against the Railway. Later on it was reported to the Railway that Y did not suffer so serious an injury as was made out by X who fraudulently created those symptoms. On legal advice obtained by the Railway, X was prosecuted but he was acquitted. He brought a suit against Railway for malicious prosecution.

One Y suffered serious injuries in a railway accident. He was assisted by a surgeon, X, on the evidence of whose Y succeeded in recovering heavy damages against the Railway. Later on it was reported to the Railway that Y did not suffer so serious an injury as was made out by X who fraudulently created those symptoms. On legal advice obtained by the Railway, X was prosecuted but he was acquitted. He brought a suit against Railway for malicious prosecution. Correct Answer X would not succeed as the railway had a reasonable and probable cause of action

Related Questions

Principle: No person can sue for a tort to which he had consented either expressly or impliedly. Voluntarily suffered injury is not fit for action. However rescue cases are exceptions.
Facts: A short distance from 'X's house, there was a railway collision due to the negligence of railway authority. 'X' voluntarily took an active part in rescue operations at the scene of the accident. As a result, he suffered prolonged anxiety and neurosis. He filed a suit for damages against railway authority.
Consider the following set of legal propositions:
1. A person can claim damages for all wrongs he has suffered.
2. A person can claim damages for wrongs only if they are caused intentionally.
3. A person can claim damages for a wrong if it is caused by infringement of this legal right.
4. A person can claim damage even if he has suffered no loss.
Of the above propositions:
A and B, unknown to D, sought and got a lift in D's car, but on account of some mechanical defect in the car, of which D was not aware, one of the front wheels of the car got detached and flew away and the car turned turtle. A and B suffered serious injuries and later A, died of his injuries. B and A's next of kin sued D for damages for negligent driving. What defence does D have?
To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition
If death results from any injury already reported as serious under sub regulation (1) or if an injury other than the serious injury becomes serious the owner/manage hall with in . . . . . . . . hours of his being informed of the same, given notice to C. I district magistrate; CI etc
In the question three statements are given, followed by three conclusions, I, II and III. You have to consider the statements to be true even if it seems to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given conclusions, if any, follows from the given statements. Statement I: Some injuries are serious. Statement II: No relation is serious. Statement III: All athletes have injuries. Conclusion I: Some athletes are serious. Conclusion II: Some athletes have relation is a possibility. Conclusion III: No athletes is serious.
Which of the following legal propositions are correct?
1. A person can claim damages even if he has suffered no loss.
2. A person can claim damages for such wrongs which are caused intentionally.
3. A person can claim damages for a wrong if it is caused by infringement of his legal right.
Which of the statement given above are correct?
A suit for compensation for malicious prosecution shall be filed within . . . . . . . . from the time when the plaintiff is acquitted or prosecution is otherwise terminated.
Suit for compensation for malicious prosecution is to be filed from the date when the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated within
In a contractual dispute between two parties A and B, A files a suit in New Delhi where the cause of action arose. Two days later, B files a suit in the same matter in Mumbai, where A is resident. The pendency of the first suit is not brought to the notice of the court in Mumbai. The court pronounces judgement in second suit before the first suit is decided. Would such decision operate as a bar on the court in New Delhi to try the suit any further?