The principle says that when one party to a contract was in a position to dominate the other party's decision, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the dominant party, not the dominated party. A doctor demanded Rs. 10,00,000 for treating a patient's fever, a situation where the doctor, holding the power to withhold treatment, was in a position to dominate the patient's decision. Let's check each option against this principle.
Because the doctor was the party in a position to dominate the patient's decision, the principle makes the contract enforceable against the patient at the doctor's option, which the doctor exercised by demanding the balance.
Therefore, the correct answer is the contract is enforceable against the patient.
The principle can be read as a conditional rule: if one party to a contract was in a position to dominate the other's decision-making, then the contract is enforceable only at the option of that dominant party, and specifically against the party who was dominated. Applying this to the facts, a doctor demanded Rs. 10,00,000 for treating a patient's fever, a situation in which the patient, needing treatment, had little room to negotiate, placing the doctor in the dominant position. Let's test each option against this rule.
Since the doctor held the dominant position over the patient during a medical emergency, the rule places the enforcement option with the doctor, making the contract enforceable against the patient once the doctor chooses to demand payment.
Therefore, the correct answer is the contract is enforceable against the patient.