Question:

Mr. Samay was severely hurt while working in his factory and fell unconscious. He was rushed to a hospital by his fellow workers. In the hospital (at emergency/casualty ward) the doctors opined that he should be operated immediately. While conducting preliminary examinations, he was found to be HIV positive. The doctors are in a dilemma regarding what should they do first:

Show Hint

The stem asks what comes first, not what is eventually done. Rank the interests and ask which one cannot survive a delay.
Updated On: Jul 17, 2026
  • Doctors should operate first
  • Doctors should inform his family members
  • Doctors should inform his employers
  • Doctors should not inform anyone because it would violate patient's right of privacy
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
Read the last line of the stem carefully. The doctors are in a dilemma about what they should do first. So the question is one of priority, not of whether the other steps are ever taken. Mr. Samay is unconscious, he needs an immediate operation, and he has just been found HIV positive.

Step 2: The competing interests.
Two things are pulling against each other. On one side is Mr. Samay's right to life under Article 21, which the doctors serve by operating at once. On the other side is his right to privacy about his HIV status, and the ordinary rule that consent must be taken before an operation.

Step 3: Rank the interests.
The right to life stands above everything else, because every other right depends on the person being alive. A doctor in a casualty ward has a duty to preserve the life of a patient brought in with a serious injury, and the Supreme Court in Parmanand Katara said that this duty comes before every formality.
Consent is not an obstacle here. Mr. Samay is unconscious and cannot give it, and the law permits treatment given in good faith for the benefit of a person who cannot consent, where the situation makes it impossible to obtain consent and delay would be dangerous. This is the same principle as an act done in good faith for another's benefit.
The HIV finding does not change the ranking either. It affects the precautions the surgical team takes, but it is not a reason to hold up an operation that is needed to keep the man alive. Refusing or delaying treatment because a patient is HIV positive would be discrimination on top of the harm.
So the first thing to do is operate. Informing anyone else can wait until the patient is out of danger.

Step 4: Why the other options fail.
Option (B) is not wrong as an eventual step, since a family would ordinarily be told about a patient. But it cannot come first. Locating the family and speaking to them takes time that a severely injured, unconscious man does not have.
Option (C) is wrong on a much stronger ground. The employer has no business knowing that Mr. Samay is HIV positive. Telling an employer risks the man losing his job and his standing, and it serves no medical purpose at all.
Option (D) answers a different question. The stem asks what the doctors should do first, and this option speaks only about disclosure while saying nothing about the operation. Privacy is a real value, but it does not compete with saving a life, and complete silence is not the rule either, since disclosure to a person at genuine risk can be justified, as the courts recognised in Mr. X v. Hospital Z.

Final Answer:
The right to life outranks every other consideration, so the doctors should operate first. Option (A) is correct.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CLAT Legal Studies Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Law of Torts Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Questions

View More Questions