Date: May, 23 2022

PLAGIARISM SCAN REPORT

17% 83% 901 6073

Plagiarised Unique Words Characters

Excluded Url : None

Content Checked For Plagiarism

Jacob Mathew Vs State Of Punjab Raman Goel Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
________________________________________ Abstract: Neglected medical treatment, nowadays have become one of the major
problems in India. Our experience tells us that medical work, one of the highest quality careers, is not immune to negligence that sometimes
results in the death of a patient or complete paralysis of the limbs, or even other trauma. There are cases where many doctors who are
illiterate or uneducated voluntarily, have eaten innocent patients. The prevalence of negligence or the deliberate behavior of medical
professionals has caused many cases in the courts. The current paper aims to analyze the concept of negligence in the medical profession
by interpreting the law by the Supreme Court of India using the case Jacob Mathew Vs State Of Punjab.
________________________________________ INTRODUCTION Medical expertise is one of the top careers among all other professions
in India. For the patient, the physician is like God. This is what the patient says he thinks. In fact, doctors are human Also making a mistake
on someone. Doctors can do fault. Doctors may be negligent. The support staff may ignore it. Negligence can cause a great deal of trouble.
It may be due to gross negligence. Everything is possible. In that case, it is important to decide who did not care, and under what
circumstances. Thus medical negligence is misconduct by a medical practitioner or doctor by not providing enough care resulting in a
breach of their duties and harming the patients. In a country that is committed to law enforcement, such cases are taken to court and judges
are present which have to be decided. ________________________________________ NEGLIGENCE It is very difficult to define
negligence; however, the word has been derived from Negligentia which means “failing to pick up”. It generally refers to carelessness. It is
breach of legal duty to take care which reside in damage undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff. The definition involves three
constituents of negligence:- (1) A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the party complaining the
former's conduct within the scope of the duty (2) Breach of the said duty and (3) Consequential damage.
________________________________________ ESSENTIALS In an action for negligence, the plaintiff has to prove the following
essentials:- • The defendant owed duty of care to the plaintiff • The defendant made the breach of that duty • The defendant suffered
damage as consequence thereof 1. DUTY OF CARE Defendant owed a legal duty towards the plaintiff it means that everyone owes money,
a duty of care, to someone else while performing an act. Although this work is present in all actions, but inadvertently, the work is naturally
lawful and cannot be illegal or illegal and cannot be morally, ethically or religiously. Some of the important case laws under this are:- 1.
Grant vs. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd.1935 2. Donoghue Vs. Stevenson 1932 3. Bourn Hill vs. Young 4. Ishwardevi vs. Union Of India 5.
Mata Prasad vs. Union Of India 2. Breach Of Duty It is not enough for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant owes him a duty of care but
that he must ensure that the defendant violates his duty to the plaintiff. Defendant violates such duty by failing to exercise due care in
carrying out the work. Some of the important case laws under this are:- 1. Glasgow Cooperation vs. Muir 1943 2. MCD vs. Subhagvanti
1966 3. Ramesh Kumar Nayak vs. Union Of Indian 1994 DAMAGE Factual Causation Legal Causation (Direct Cause) (Proximate Cause)
For defendant to held liable it must be Damage must be direct and the natural shown particular act were the cause of result of
consequences of act of loss sustained. defendant. ________________________________________ Proof Of Negligence 1) Res Ipsa
Loquitor – The thing speaks for itself ? Defendant was in exclusive control of situation that caused injury ? The injury would not have
ordinary occurred for defendant’s negligence. ? Plaintiff’s injury was not done due to his own action. 2) Negligence per se- When there is
violation of law ? There is statue that adjusts a certain standard of conduct. ? Defendant violates that statue ? Plaintiff suffered some sort of
injury ________________________________________ CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IGNORANCE FROM BOTH PARTIES ? Volenti
Non Fit Injuria- Injury sustained voluntary Plaintiff did not take due care of his own safety and contributed for his own damage OR he knew
the extent of damage that can be caused to him and even then agrred to have such damage on acts of defendant. Case law: Butterfly vs.
Forrester 1809 ? Rule Of Last Opportunity- Last opportunity towards an accident Who so ever had last opportunity to avoid would be held
responsible Case law: Davies vs. Mann 1842 ? Rule Of Avoidable Loss- Duty of an injured person to mitigate the loss or damage. WHEN
THE DEFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE ? When it is not necessary for plaintiff to take due care but the defendant was legally obligated to
perform such duty of care, ? Defendant has time to recover and take reasonable measure to avoid accident, ? Not applicable to maritime
law, ? Not applicable to Motor Vehicle Act . ________________________________________ COMPOSITE NEGLIGENCE 1. Two or more
person are resulted in same damage. 2. Liability is joint and several. Case law: Parsani Devi vs. State Of Haryana 1973
________________________________________ DIFFERENCES ________________________________________

4% Plagiarized

Jun 29, 2016 · (1) A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the party complaining the former's
conduct within the scope of the duty; (2) Breach of the said duty; and (3) Consequential damage.

https://alb.lawfarm.in/blogs/professional-negligence/

4% Plagiarized

Remedies Of Negligence And Misinterpretation | JudicateMe

https://judicateme.com/remedies-of-negligence-and-misinterpretation/

4% Plagiarized

Res Ipsa Loquitor - The Thing Speaks for Itself: Elevator ...

https://www.sdglawfirm.com/case-studies-1/res-ipsa-loquitor-the-thing-speaks-for-itself-elevator-malfunction-might-preclude-summary-
judgment#:~:text=Thus%20the%20doctrine%20of%20res,under%20the%20ordinary%20negligence%20theory.

4% Plagiarized

Mar 06, 2021 · In an action for negligence, the plaintiff has to prove the following essentials of negligence : That the defendant owed duty
of care to the plaintiff; The defendant made a breach of that duty; The plaintiff suffered damage as a consequence thereof. Duty of care to
the plaintiff. It means a legal duty rather than a mere moral, religious or ...

https://theteche.com/essentials-of-negligence-under-the-law-of-torts//