I Year B.A., LL. B (Div.-D and E) – Semester-2 (2021)
2nd -Internal Assessment – TORTS
----------------------------------------
NAME: Vansh Jain and Aditya Chavhan
DIVISION: B
PRN: 20010126808 and 20010126809
COURSE: BBA LL.B. (H)
BATCH: 2020-2025
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Guidelines and tips
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
University Rankings
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Our save-the-student-ebooks!
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Defamation and Negligence in Indian Law: Case Studies and Analysis, Cheat Sheet of Law of Torts
This document delves into the legal concepts of defamation and negligence within the indian legal framework. It presents two real-world case studies, one involving a defamation suit against a yoga guru and the other concerning medical negligence in a hospital. The document analyzes the essential elements of each tort, highlighting the legal principles and burdens of proof involved. It also explores the implications of these torts on reputation and the duty of care owed by individuals and institutions.
Typology: Cheat Sheet
2019/2020
1 / 10
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Related documents
Partial preview of the text
Download Defamation and Negligence in Indian Law: Case Studies and Analysis and more Cheat Sheet Law of Torts in PDF only on Docsity!
I Year B.A., LL. B (Div.-D and E) – Semester-2 (2021)
nd
-Internal Assessment – TORTS
NAME: Vansh Jain and Aditya Chavhan
DIVISION: B
PRN: 20010126808 and 20010126809
COURSE: BBA LL.B. (H)
BATCH: 2020-
News report 1- WhiteHat Jr Drops INR 20 Cr Defamation Suit Against Pradeep Poonia [1]Summary According to Poonia, Edtech WhiteHat Jr. has decided to drop a $ 2.6 million defamation proceeding against critic Pradeep Poonia. The BYJU-owned company sent a legal notice to Poonia last November on Twitter using the username WhiteHatSnr regarding "trademark and unregistered trademark infringement." The proceedings relate to comments on social media and news reports regarding Poonia's alleged defamation of White Hat Jr. This notice indicates that Defendant (Punia) has committed these defamation acts through a comment on the White Hat Jr ad about the fictional character "Wolf Gupta" hired by Google in early September. After White Hat Jr removed Wolf Gupta's mention from the ad, Poonia claims to have "murdered" Wolf Gupta, one of the defamation cases cited by White Hat Jr, following a review viewed by Inc42 access. White Hat Jr. Posted a deletion notice for certain tweets posted by Poonia. Poonia also claimed to have launched an "organized and very ugly attack" on the company, and "called for illegal activity, then made a barbaric and baseless claim against her" complainant, "the note said. In addition to Poonia, WhiteHat Jr has filed a $ 1.9 million libel suit against angel investor AniruddhaMalpani, who was banned on LinkedIn for criticizing BYJU. The legal opinion also accuses Marupani of violating the Trademark Law of 1999 and the Civil Procedure Law of 1908. [2] Tort involved The tort involved in this case is defamation. Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.
Judgement This judgement is an appeal from the district judge's decree. If the defendant has in fact injured the plaintiff's reputation, he is liable, although he did not intend so to do, and had no such purpose in his mind when he wrote or spoke the words. The words are actionable if false and defamatory, although published accidentally or inadvertently. From the argument before the court, it was proved that the information published about the plaintiff was false. There is no clue or evidence from the respondent side about the validity of the information. So it was a false report due to which the plaintiff and her family's reputation has been injured. As the words published were proved false and defamatory, general damages were presumed and the court was of the opinion that the damages of 10,000 were correct. Analysis Reputation has its value in human life. It is one of the important and most valuable property. So any kind of defamatory statement about ones reputation can lower it in eyes of right- thinking people. No one has the right to spread any defamatory statement about another person that affects their reputation, without any lawful justification. In any defamation cases, the burden of proof lies with the defendant to prove that the mentioned statements aren't false. [b] IMA Uttarakhand slaps Rs 1,000 crore defamation notice on Baba Ramdev over remarks on allopathy medicine The Indian Medical Association (IMA) Uttarakhand branch has slapped a defamation notice of Rs 1,000 crore on yoga guru Baba Ramdev over his recent controversial remarks against allopathic medicine for treatment of Covid-19 cases. In its defamation notice, IMA Uttarakhand has stated that if Baba Ramdev doesn't post a video countering his statements on allopathic medicine, or tender a written apology within the next 15 days, then a sum of Rs 1000 crore will be demanded from him. Moreover, the IMA Uttararanchal State Branch had also written to Uttarakhand Chief Minister Tirath Singh Rawat against Baba Ramdev's statements against allopathic medical profession "hoping for a prompt and strict action" against him. Citing a video circulating on social media, the Indian Medical Association said Baba Ramdev has claimed that allopathy is a "stupid science" and medicines such as
remdesivir, faviflu, and other drugs approved by the Drugs Controller General of India have failed to treat Covid-19 patients. Union Health Minister Harsh Vardhan on Sunday called yoga guru Baba Ramdev's statement on allopathic medicines "extremely unfortunate" and asked him to withdraw the remark, saying it disrespects 'corona warriors' and can break the morale of healthcare workers.
[2]Tort involved The tort involved in this report is Negligence. Probably one among the most common forms of personal injury lawsuits involves a claim of negligence. Negligence describes a state of affairs during which an individual acts in a careless (or "negligent") manner, which ends in somebody else getting hurt or property being damaged. Negligence can often be a difficult space of law to outline because it involves a legal analysis of the elements of negligence as they relate to the facts of a particular case. [3] Essentials of negligence This definition of negligence has three elements:
- A legal duty on the part of the party complained of to exercise proper care towards the party complaining about the former's conduct within the scope of the duty.
- That the defendant had executed the breach of such duty.
- That the plaintiff was harmed as a result of the breach of duty.
- That the consequences presented were undesirable. And as for medical negligence, a breach of these three duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient:
- There is a duty of care in deciding whether or not to take on such a case.
- A duty to use caution while determining what treatment to give.
- A duty of care to correctly administer the treatment.
CASE
Facts Kunal Saha Vs AMRI (Advanced Medical Research institute ) famously known as Anuradha Saha Case, this case was filed in 1998 with the allegation of medical negligence on Kolkata- based AMRI Hospital and three doctors namely Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, Dr. Baidyanath Halder, and Dr. Balram Prasad. In simple layman terms, the wife was suffering from drug allergy and the doctors were negligent in prescribing medicine which further aggravated the condition of the patient and finally led to death. Issues- Whether the acts of the doctors lead to negligence on their part? Whether the right of the patient was breached? Judgment In brief this was the facts and circumstances of the case, in this case, the final verdict was given by the Supreme court on 24th October 2013 and compensation of around 6.08 crore for the death of his wife. Analysis it was the duty of the doctors to prescribe the relevant medications to the patient. There was a breach of this duty as the doctors were negligent and prescribed the wrong medicines which eventually led to the death of the patient. The court in its judgment used the concept of res ipsa loquitor as the facts speak for themselves.
proper medical treatment to him. If proper treatment was provided to him his life could have been saved but to gross medical negligence proper treatment was denied to him leading to his unfortunate death. Analysis It is clear as light that due to the incompetence of the doctors at both the hospitals resulted in a loss of life. Had he a correct diagnosis and proper treatment it would have saved his life. Hospitals have a duty of care to their patients since they're entrusted with saving human lives. When they commit such mistakes it proves to be fatal for their patients. They should pay compensation to the victims of such incompetence. Only then human life will be valued.