STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Miss Ankita Khanna D/o Late Sh. K. L. Khanna R/o H.No.D-42, (2^nd

….Complainant.

Versus

1. Dheer Dental Clinic, SCO No.358, First Floor, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.
2. Dr. Dhavneet Singh Dheer, Dental Surgeon & Consultant, Dheer Dental Clinic, SCO No.358, First Floor, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by: 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

2.           

3.          

4.          

5.          

6.          

7.          

8.           

9.          

10.        , the complainants, before the National Commission, jointly and severally, sought the following reliefs against the Opposite Parties:-

 “(a) Rs. 25,07,00,000.00 (Rupees twenty five crores and seven lakh only) as damages and future treatment expenses as entitled and claimed in Paragraph Nos. 110 to 123 of the Complaint with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of Complaint.

(b) Rs. 1,00,00,000.00 (Rupees one crore only) as interim damages for the expenses already incurred and future treatment expenses.

(c) ………

(d) ……..

(e) Cost of this complaint.

(d) Pass any order(s) which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

In that case, the complainants had first invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum and their total claim, under all the heads of reliefs, could not have exceeded the pecuniary limit of Rs.20 Lacs laid down for the District Forum under Section 11 of the Act. The complainants failed to explain the reasons, as to why the jurisdiction of the District Forum was invoked in the first place, when apparently the perception of the complainant about the magnitude of the claim against the Opposite Parties was even more than Rs.26 Crores. The Hon’ble National Commission, further held in Paras 7 and 10 as under:-

 “7. The list of documents enclosed with the complaint petition includes a copy of the legal notice issued on 29.7.2009 to OP-1 and OP-4. The notice informs that after consultation with several hospitals, they have sought appointment for further treatment of the child at Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore. Significantly, the notice also states that:

“In these circumstances doctor Kavitha as well as hospital authorities were liable to compensate my client’s suffering by giving medical expenses and also compensation for the disability suffered to my client’s child.

At present as medical expenses my client had spent Rs.81,246 as per bill and about Rs. 15,000 as expenses. End of this week itself my client is willing to go to Christian Medical College Hospital, Velloor. So I humbly request you as an instalment for bearing medical expenses you my immediately pay Rs. 1,00,000 to my client before going to the Christian Medical College Hospital, Velloor.”

8. ……….

9. ………

10. Even in a case where the allegation of medical negligence is established to the satisfaction of the concerned Consumer Forum, the quantum of compensation, payable to the victim, would need to be determined on the basis of the nature of the injury or loss. It has to be commensurate with the loss or injury suffered. It cannot be arbitrary, imaginary or remote to the cause. The law on this subject is well enunciated.

11.Ratna Ghosh and Another v. Dr. P.K. Agarwal and Others,

“In our view, the National Commission did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the complaint because the appellants did not produce any tangible material for claiming exemplary damages of Rs. 2 crores. This being the position, the National Commission rightly observed that the claim had been unreasonably inflated for bringing the complaint within its jurisdiction.”

12. Similarly, inSujata Nath v. Popular Nursing Home and Others,III (2011) CPJ 239 (NC)=Civil Appeal No. 8642 of 2011 decided on 14.10.2011, the Complainant had made a total claim of Rs. 150 lakh against the Nursing Home and others. Out of this, Rs.45 lakh was claimed towards ‘future ‘expenditure on HIV medication’ and a further sum of Rs. 35 lakh for ‘future medical expenses relating to the progressive failure of the immune system’. The basis how these figures were arrived at, was not explained. The National Commission observed that even if the Complainant is able to establish the claim of negligence and deficiency in service, as alleged, the compensation claimed or which can be awarded by a Consumer Forum for such negligence or deficiency has to be commensurate with the loss and injury suffered. It cannot be arbitrary, imaginary or for a remote cause. The National Commission, therefore, ordered that the complaint be returned to the Complainant for presentation before an appropriate Forum, after making suitable amendment in the complaint in accordance with law. This view of the National Commission was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, observing that—

“In the complaint filed by her, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,00,000, but despite an opportunity having been given by the National Commission, she could not, prima facie, show how she was entitled to Rupees eighty lakh towards future medical treatment and Rupees fifty lakh for mental agony and harassment allegedly caused by the respondents. Therefore, the National Commission did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the complaint and rightly returned the same for being filed before an appropriate Forum.”

13. Considering the material examined above, we have no hesitation in holding that the prayer made in the complaint petition is highly exaggerated and not borne out by the material placed on record. Therefore, the complaint petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the complainant to seek remedy before an appropriate Forum of competent jurisdiction. Towards that, the time spent in the present proceedings shall be excluded from determination of the period of limitation. We also deem it proper to clarify that nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the complaint.”

11.        

12.        

13.        

14.        

Pronounced.

February 19, 2014.

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

AD

STATE COMMISSION

(Consumer Complaint No.16

Argued by: 

Dated the 19^th

ORDER

              the complaint, in original, has been ordered to be returned to the complainant, alongwith the documents, attached therewith, after retaining the attested to be true photocopies of the same, for presentation, before the appropriate Forum, having pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the same.

Ad