CLAT 2019 UG Question 119 Legal Aptitude Detailed Answer

119. Principle: Where one of the parties to a contract was in position to dominate the decision of the other party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party who was in a position to dominate decision of the other party.

Facts: A doctor asked his patient to make a payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lac Only) for treatment of his fever. The patient paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lac Only) and promised to pay the remaining amount after the treatment. After treatment the patient recovered from fever. The doctor demanded the remaining amount from the patient. The patient refused to pay.

(A) The contract is enforceable against the doctor.

(B) The contract is enforceable against the patient.

(C) The contract is not enforceable.

(D) The contract is not enforceable against the patient.

Here, in the above question, there is an element of influence. The Indian Contract Act specifically states about a kind of influence that is in a negative form. A contract should always be one with free consent. Otherwise, it is not a good one. In Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, the term “undue influence” is used which is a negative form of influence as per a contract is considered. In this case, a party to a contract is having some sort of domination or control over the action or will of the other party using which the dominant party succeeds in getting the influenced party to a contract. The influenced party in such a contract is cleary at a disadvantage compared to the dominant party.

To extract the section “16(1):  A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

The above Fact in the question shows a relationship between a doctor and a patient. In Section 16(2) Clause (b) it is stated so” ….a person is deemed to be in a  position to dominate the will of another-when he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.”

Thus it can be seen that the doctor is in a dominant position against the patient. If you have understood the legal position clearly, we can move on to the options.

Option (A) The contract is enforceable against the doctor.

The Principle says that the dominant party has the option to enforce the contract against the dominated party. Here the doctor is clearly in a dominating position. So as per the principle, the doctor can choose to enforce the contract. Hence it is absurd to point this option as correct.

Option (B) The contract is enforceable against the patient.

As per the Principle and analysis of the legal provisions stated above, it is clear that the doctor is in a dominating position. In such a case we can safely choose this answer as the correct one. Here, please refer to the above legal provision as we have mentioned that it is in a negative form. The basic law is that the contract must be free from coercion and undue influence. Here the doctor has asked a huge amount for treatment of fever. The poor patient is the one who must unwillingly agree to the unreasonable demand of the doctor. Here if the patient disagrees later on the ground of using undue influence to force him to enter into the contract of treatment, the doctor is cast with the burden of proving that he has not used such undue influence. Sub section 3 of Section 16 clearly states it.

(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other.

The patient has agreed to pay the remaining sum after the treatment and he paid half the amount outright to the doctor. Here, it appears to be a valid contract. Yet if the patient refuses to adhere to the contract, it is upon the doctor to prove that the contract was valid one free from any sort of influence. It means that it can be enforced if the doctor proves so. It can also be otherwise. But in such confusion when the law is clear, we are supposed to believe the Principle given in the question which states that the dominant party has the option to enforce the contract against the dominant party.

Hence, without a doubt, we can choose Option B as the correct answer.

Option (C) The contract is not enforceable.

In clear terms, a contract should be free from any sort of undue influence. But if there is undue influence the primary challenge should be from the person dominated that he had been dragged into making such a promise. If he raises such a dispute, the dominant party can choose to either agree to the argument or choose to enforce the contract by proving that there was no undue influence as per Section 16(3) stated above. There are two possibilities, obviously, one being the success of the dominant party. Hence we cannot say that the contract is not enforceable, though it has the invalid ingredient of undue influence in it. Hence this option is incorrect.

Option (D) The contract is not enforceable against the patient.
Since the doctor has the dominating role, he has the option to enforce the contract and hence it is incorrect to state that the contract is unenforceable against the patient.