Medical law and ethics: expert reports without attendance: practice question

A Forensic Medicine question in the style of the NEET PG paper. Answer it first, then read why the right option is right and why each of the others is wrong.

Try it

Forensic Medicine · Medical law and ethics: expert reports without attendance

Sample item

In a trial, the report of a government Chemical Examiner is produced against the accused. Is the examiner required to appear in court?

AYes, but only if the accused pleads guiltyBYes, the report is inadmissible unless he gives oral evidenceCNo, and the court cannot summon himDNot necessarily; the report is admissible without calling him, though the court may summon him

Original practice item, not a recalled exam question. Nothing here is recorded.

The answer and the reasoning

D. Not necessarily; the report is admissible without calling him, though the court may summon him

Reports of specified government scientific experts, such as the Chemical Examiner, may be used as evidence without calling the expert. The court can still summon and examine him if it thinks necessary or if either side requests it.

Option by option

A. Yes, but only if the accused pleads guilty
The plea of the accused does not decide this rule.
B. Yes, the report is inadmissible unless he gives oral evidence
The law makes the report admissible without his oral evidence.
C. No, and the court cannot summon him
The court retains power to summon the examiner.
D. Not necessarily; the report is admissible without calling him, though the court may summon him (correct)
Correct. Such reports are admissible without personal attendance, subject to the court's power to summon.

Source note: Original NextPrep sample item — pending expert review. This item is original practice material awaiting independent expert review, so confirm important facts in a standard textbook.

Questions about this Forensic Medicine question

What is the answer to this Forensic Medicine question?

The best answer is D, Not necessarily; the report is admissible without calling him, though the court may summon him. Reports of specified government scientific experts, such as the Chemical Examiner, may be used as evidence without calling the expert.

Why is "Yes, but only if the accused pleads guilty" not the answer?

The plea of the accused does not decide this rule.

Why is "Yes, the report is inadmissible unless he gives oral evidence" not the answer?

The law makes the report admissible without his oral evidence.

Why is "No, and the court cannot summon him" not the answer?

The court retains power to summon the examiner.

What concept does this question test?

It tests Medical law and ethics: expert reports without attendance in Forensic Medicine. The court can still summon and examine him if it thinks necessary or if either side requests it.

How hard is this question?

We tag it as a multi-step question: it asks you to combine more than one idea. The tag is our own editorial judgement, not an official difficulty rating, so read the reason for every option, not only the answer.

How should I study Medical law and ethics: expert reports without attendance?

Learn postmortem changes with their timelines, and toxicology as poison, sign, test and antidote. Then use the flashcards and the other Forensic Medicine questions on this site to test what stuck.

Is this a real NEET PG question?

No. It is an original practice item (editorial status: sample, version 1). NextPrep does not publish recalled or leaked questions, and independent faculty review of this item has not been completed yet, so confirm important facts in a standard textbook.