| A 25 year old person sustained injury in right eye. He developed right corneal opacity following the injury. Left eye was already having poor vision. Corneoplasty of right eye was done and vision was restored. Medicolegally such injury is labeled as: |
| Grievous |
|
100% |
[ 10 ] |
| Simple |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Dangerous |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Serious |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 10 |
|
|
Author
|
Message
|
akanksha
Credits:
41227
My Scrapbook
My Reading List
14 Books
|
|
01.13.04 (4 years ago)
#21
|
|
| Bruno wrote: |
Eighthly- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. |
wat do u say abt this.
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Prof. Anil Aggrawal
Credits:
77491
My Scrapbook
My Reading List
262569 Books
|
|
|
01.14.04 (4 years ago)
#22
|
|
14 January 2004
My dear Himanshu,
A very happy new year to you and your extremly ebullient group.
The question that appears to have been asked is:
Q. A 25 year old person sustained injury in right eye. He developed right corneal opacity following the injury. Left eye was already having poor vision. Corneoplasty of right eye was done and vision was restored. Medicolegally such injury is labeled as:
1. Grievous
2. Simple
3. Dangerous
4. Serious
The answer of course is "Grievious". I am happy all nine students chose "Grievious", because that is the right answer.
The only confusing aspect is that corneoplasty restored the vision (As someone has rightly said in the group, the poor vision in the left eye is immaterial, and that fact has been introduced only to cause some confusion. The age -25 years - is also of no consequence). This can be confusing.
The legal philosophy in this case is "WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THE NATURAL COURSE OF EVENTS". And we all know that in the natural course of events the corneal opacity would not have dissolved.
Take another example. A teacher hits a student on the temple with the result that his tympanic membrane ruptures. Despite the fact that a myringoplasty can restore the tympanic membrane - and his hearing - it is a grievious hurt.
The situation could have been trickier. What if the original tympanic membrane had a hole in it (CSOM)? The teacher hit him rupturing the membrane. The teacher (let us assume he is wealthy) offers to get a tympanoplasty free of cost to the student. After the tympanoplasty, the student actually gets a BETTER ear than what it was before. So can we call that the teacher caused a grievious hurt?
Well, I am not sure, what would happen in such a case. Such a case - to the best of my knowledge - has never occured in real life. However I have an instinctive thought. The courts would tend to see whether the hearing was worse with the rupture (than with the hole), which I am sure it would be. And if the hearing was worse with the rupture, the court would assume it was grievious.
But let us not take it as gospel truth. Courts have been known to reverse their own judgements. So ultimately the whole issue becomes very very tricky.
But not for nothing, they say, "Law is an ass"
Regards!
Professor Anil Aggrawal
Forensic
Medicine
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
RxPG_Team
Credits:
19655971
My Scrapbook
My Reading List
5 Books
|
|
|
01.14.04 (4 years ago)
#23
|
|
Well Dr Himanshu Tyagi (Director, RxPG) sought the opinion of Professor Anil Aggrawal, Professor, Forensic
medicine in Maulana Azad Medical College and a well known author in Forensic
Literature.
The letter above was a copy of that!
A huge thanks for Dr Aggrawal from RxPG team and RxPG visitors for his kind attention and time.
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
akanksha
Credits:
41227
My Scrapbook
My Reading List
14 Books
|
|
|
01.14.04 (4 years ago)
#24
|
|
thanks RxPG,Dr.Himanshu and Dr.Aggarwal
n RxPG team,of course. 
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bruno
Credits:
44569
My Scrapbook
My Reading List
50 Books
|
|
|
01.14.04 (4 years ago)
#25
|
|
Accepted
For this Question..... then answer is Grevious Injury
Suppose (not for this question) if the vision was restored without treatment, then the injury will be  Your opinion please 
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
akanksha
Credits:
41227
My Scrapbook
My Reading List
14 Books
|
|
|
01.14.04 (4 years ago)
#26
|
|
| Quote: |
Suppose (not for this question) if the vision was restored without treatment, then the injury will be Your opinion please
|
if the vision was restored without treatment,dat means it wasnt "permanent deprivation" of vision.
then it shdnt be grevious.
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bruno
Credits:
44569
My Scrapbook
My Reading List
50 Books
|
|
|
01.14.04 (4 years ago)
#27
|
|
| Quote: |
if the vision was restored without treatment,dat means it wasnt "permanent deprivation" of vision.
then it shdnt be grevious. |
Then it is SIMPLE !!!!
After all these storm what we have learnt is that
1. If there is a Eye Injury and no loss of vision it is SIMPLE
2. If there is a Eye Injury and permanent loss of vision then it is GREVIOUS
3. If there is a Eye Injury and loss of vision for sometimes and restoration of vision without treatment it is SIMPLE
4. If there is a Eye Injury and loss of vision for sometimes and restoration of vision after treatment it is GREVIOUS
If there is a injury to Eye lids, not affecting the eye, what will be the injury if there is a
1. Abrasion of Eyelid skin
2. Laceration
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Anil Aggrawal
Credits:
77491
My Scrapbook
My Reading List
262569 Books
|
|
|
01.15.04 (4 years ago)
#28
|
|
15 January 2004
Dear Group,
We have now begun treading on a very slippery wicket. Let me take each query one by one.
If the eye vision is restored to normal without treatment, then it may NOT necessarily be simple. If the vision was too bad to interfere with the ordinary pursuits of life, and if it persisted for more than 20 days, then obviously it should be classified as grievous.
Regarding injury to the eyelids:
1. An abrasion need not be grievous, as it will heal without scar.
2. A lacertaion might be treated as grievous, because it will heal with scar. It will cause permanent disfigurement of face, and perhaps permanent difficulty in closure of eyelids, which will come in clause 5, i.e. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
Regarding the statements made by Bruno:
| Quote: |
1. If there is a Eye Injury and no loss of vision it is SIMPLE
2. If there is a Eye Injury and permanent loss of vision then it is GRIEVOUS
3. If there is a Eye Injury and loss of vision for sometimes and restoration of vision without treatment it is SIMPLE
4. If there is a Eye Injury and loss of vision for sometimes and restoration of vision after treatment it is GREVIOUS |
Statements 1 and 2 are obviously alright. There is a problem with statements 3 and 4, as I have already pointed out. In case 3, if the vision is restored within 20 days, then it might be simple, otherwise, we will have to see if the loss of vision interfered with the ordinary pursuits of life. If it did, then it is grievous.
Statement 4: If there was restoration of vision after treatment, then it may not necessarily be grievous. It is quite possible, that the vision might have been restored - even in the natural course of events - within 20 days. If that were the case, the injury would obviously be simple.
We can go on and on like this endlessly. I think we can avoid unnecessary confusion by keeping just one fact in mind. Mentally try to extrapolate, what would have happened in the natural course of events, and you would be just fine.
As an aside, let me tell you what we mean by ordiary pursuits:
Let us read clause 8 once again. It says:
(8) Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
Note that the wording is "HIS ordinary pursuits". Now, what are your ordinary pursuits may not necessarily be my ordinary pursuits. So it is quite possible that the same injury may be grievous in your case and not in mine, and vice-versa. This is one of the most confounding concepts, with which even I have found myself unable to come to terms.
What are the ordinary pursuits by the way? Going to toilet, brushing our teeth, reading newspapers, reading books.... what? Well, I can safely say, that reading and writing are MY ordinary pursuits. It may not necessarily be the ordinary pursuits of a person who, say, pulls a rickshaw for a daily living. So an injury which makes me unable to read for 20 days may well be classified as a grievous hurt for me, while the very same injury may not be classified as a grievous hurt for the rickshawwallah (I can not think up such an injury right now, but may be some bright person in the group will be able to enlighten us). Similarly an injury which makes a rickshawwallah unable to pull his rickshaw may be grievous for him, but may not necessarily be for me.
Regards
Anil Aggrawal
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bruno
Credits:
44569
My Scrapbook
My Reading List
50 Books
|
|
|
01.15.04 (4 years ago)
#29
|
|
| Quote: |
| which makes me unable to read for 20 days may well be classified as a grievous hurt for me, while the very same injury may not be classified as a grievous hurt for the rickshawwallah |
Any injury that cause the lens of the eye to Pop up (theory only) will allow the rickshahwallah to pull his rickshaw, but a clerk / professor cannnot read as near sight will be affected for both
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bruno
Credits:
44569
My Scrapbook
My Reading List
50 Books
|
|
|
01.15.04 (4 years ago)
#30
|
|
The rickshah man will have difficulties looking at the Rupee note you give....... that means the injury affects his duties 
Well there is a famous saying in Tamil "Sattam Oru Iruttarai" - "Law is a darkroom" Now I understand why
| Quote: |
| "Law is a dark room; It is the duty of the lawyer to light it with his arguments" |
------
Please note that the ANSWER for THIS Question in AIPGME 2004 is GREVIOUS. We are not doubting that.... the discussion is for improving our knowledge 
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Topic Tags: 
