Each question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this section to test your knowledge of law.

PRINCIPLE: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.

FACTS: 'R', a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organised by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits 'R' on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

The correct answer is: 'R' would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.

This question tests the application of the legal principle known as Volenti Non Fit Injuria — a Latin maxim meaning "to a willing person, no injury is done." The principle stated in the question captures this doctrine precisely: a person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.

Let us apply this principle step-by-step to the given facts:

Step 1 — Identify the Principle:
The governing principle tells us that consent acts as a complete defence. If a person knowingly and voluntarily agrees to expose themselves to a risk, they cannot later sue for any injury arising from that very risk.

Step 2 — Analyse the Facts:
'R' is a cricket enthusiast who voluntarily purchased a ticket to watch a T20 IPL match. By doing so, 'R' chose to be present in a cricket stadium as a spectator. A cricket stadium is an environment where, by its very nature, cricket balls are hit at high speeds — including sixes that can travel into the spectator stands. This is a well-known and foreseeable risk associated with attending a live cricket match.

Step 3 — Establish Implied Consent:
When 'R' bought the ticket and entered the stadium, he impliedly consented to all ordinary risks that are inherent to watching a live cricket game. He did not need to sign a written waiver — his voluntary act of purchasing the ticket and being present as a spectator is sufficient to establish consent under the given principle. A ball being hit for a six and landing in the stands is not an extraordinary or unforeseeable event; it is a normal, anticipated occurrence in cricket.

Step 4 — Apply the Principle to the Facts:
Since 'R' voluntarily exposed himself to the known risk of a cricket ball striking spectators, and since the principle clearly bars any legal remedy for injuries arising from acts to which the person has consented, 'R' has no valid legal claim against IPL. His suit for compensation for medical expenses must fail.

Step 5 — Eliminate the Other Options:
- Option 1 ("'R' should be compensated as he purchased the ticket to get entertainment and not to get injured") — This reasoning is flawed. The purpose of buying a ticket (entertainment) is irrelevant. What matters is whether 'R' consented to the risk by being present, which he did.
- Option 3 ("IPL would be liable as it did not ensure spectators were protected") — There is no such fact stated in the question. We are told only to assume the stated facts, and no negligence or failure of protective measures is mentioned. This cannot be assumed.
- Option 4 ("None of the above") — This is incorrect because Option 2 is the correct derivation.

Conclusion:
The principle of Volenti Non Fit Injuria directly applies here. By choosing to attend the match, 'R' voluntarily accepted all inherent risks of being a spectator at a cricket game, including the risk of being struck by a ball. Therefore, 'R' would fail in his action against IPL, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the very risk that caused his injury.