CHARAN SINGH

v.

HEALING TOUCH HOSPITAL AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2000

[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., M.B. SHAH AND

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.]

Consumer Protection Act, I 986:

A

B

Section 23-National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission C

dismissing a complaint after six years of its pendency without expressing any

opinion

on the merits of the case, on the ground that the claim made was

excessive-Legality of-Held, the National

Conslfmer Forum was not fair in

disposing of the complaint by styling the claim as "excessive" or

"exaggerated"-Whether the claim was realistic, exaggerated, or excessive, D

could only have been determined after the complainant had been given an

opportunity to prove the case he had set up-Loss of salary is not the sole

factor which was required

to be taken into consideration-The complainant

has virtually been condemned unheard after waiting for six long years

and.

the legislative intent for enacting the legislation of a speedy summary trial,

to settle the claim 'of the complainant has been breached in this respect-E

Impugned Order of the National Consumer Forum set aside and complaint

filed by the complainant remanded

to the National Consumer Forum for its

disposal in accordance with law.

Sections I I (1), I 7(a)-Compensation-Quantification of-Held,

National Consumer Forum has jurisdiction, without pecuniary limitations, to F

award proper compensation, even less than the one claimed in a given case,

depending upon the established facts and circumstances of that particular

case-The District Forum and the State Forum, on the other hand, have

pecuniary jurisdictional limitations for granting compensation

beyond their

jurisdictional limits.

Appellant went to the respondent hospital for treatment of stomach

ache

and burning sensation while passing urine. He was admitted for an

operation for removal of stone. Certain complications arose on account of

negligence, both in the administration of spinal anaesthesia and performing

G

the operation, as a result of which he was paralysed on the right side of his H

337

338 SUPREME COURT .REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A body. The respondent was ;>rescribed some medicines and discharged from

the hospital. Despite

taking the prescribed medicines, there was no

improvement. He also started passing blood along with urine. He was advised

to undergo another operation to stop passing

of blood with urine. When the

appellant was taken to the operation

theatre and after administering

B anaesthesia to him, when he was in drowsy state respondent nos. 2 and 3,

obtained his signatures on some papers. He was discharged from the hospital

after a few days with his

right side of the body still paralytic. He was

prescribed some medicines which

he kept on taking.

Since paralytic condition

continued, the appellant went back to respondent no. I hospital where

respondent no. 2 asked him to leave the hospital and not to

return to the

C hospital ever again. Thereafter, the appellant went to Medical Diagnostic

Centre wherein he was told that his left kidney had been removed. He

went

back to the respondent hospital from where he was turned away without any

explanation.

Thereupon, the appellant

filed a complaint before the National Consumer

D Disputes Redressal Commission. He claimed Rs. 34 lacs by way of

compensation from the respondents on various grounds, under different heads.

The National Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint without expressing

any opinion on

the merits of the case, but granting liberty to the appellant

"to make a realistic claim" and move the State Forum or the District Forum,

E as the case may be in accordance with law. Hence the present appeal.

On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the National Consumer

Forum was not justified in its observation

that the claim put forward by the

appellant was unrealistic, exaggerated

or excessive

after referring to his

salary only;

that the appellant should have been

given an opportunity to

F substantiate his claim; that the National Consumer Forum was not right in

scuttling an inquiry into the clai111: ,of the appellant in 'limine' after keeping

him waiting for six long years; that the impugned order violates the spirit

with which the Consumer Protection Act was enacted.

On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the claim of the

G appellant was exaggerated and excessive and the National Consumer Forum

rightly rejected it, without giving any findings on merits so as not to prejudice

the case

of the appellant before the District Forum or the

State Forum.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

H HELD : I. The National Consumer Forum, was not fair in disposing

1.

I

CHARAN SINGH v. HEALING TOUCH HOS PIT AL 339

of the complaint of the appellant by styling his claim as "excessive" or A

"exaggerated", after six years of the pendency of the complaint, and asking

the appellant to move the State

Forum or the

l>istrict Forum by making "a

realistic claim." It was not fair to call his claim "unrealistic", "exaggerated"

or "excessive" without giving the appellant an opportunity to substantiate his

case. The National Consumer Forum should have taken the complaint to its

B

logical conclusion by asking the parties to adduce the evidence and rendered

its findings on merits. A mathematical calculation based only on the amount

of salary drawn by

foe appellant could not be the sole factor to be taken into

consideration to style the claim of the appellant "unrealistic" or

"exaggerated" or "excessive". It is not merely the alleged harm or mental

pain, agony

or physical discomfort, loss of salary and emoluments etc

.. suffered C

by the appellant which is in issue -it is also the quality of conduct committed

by

the respondents upon which attention is required to be founded in a case

of

proven negligence. The appellant has virtually been condemned unheard

after waiting for six long years. The legislative intent, for enacting the

legislation, of a speedy summary trial to settle the claim of the complainant D

has been breached in this respect. (342-G-H; 344-HJ

2. Consumer Protection Act is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation

intended to protect a large body

of consumers from exploitation. The Act

provides for an alternative system

of consumer justice by summary trial. The

authorities

under the Act exercise quasi-judicial powers for redressal of

consumer disputes and it is one of the postulates of such a body that it should E

arrive at a conclusion based on reason.

Unfortunately there are no reasons

in the impugned order in support of the conclusion that the claim of the

appellant

is

"unrealistic" or "exaggerated" or "excessive". The spirit of the

benevolent legislation has been overlooked and its object frustrated by non­

suiting the appellant

in the manner in which it has been done by the National F

Consumer Forum. [343-E, G]

3. While quantifying damages Consumer Forums are required to make

an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an

established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the

individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative G

change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed, calculation of damages

depends on the facts

and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule

can be laid down for universal application.

It is for the Consumer Forum to

grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the

facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial

standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge. National H

340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Consumer Forum has jurisdiction, without pecuniary limitations, to award

proper compensation, even less than the one claimed in a given case, depending

upon the established facts

and circumstances of that particular case and the

evidence led by the parties. The District

Forum and the

State Forum, on the

other hand, have pecuniary jurisdictional limitation for granting compensation

B beyond their jurisdictional limits. [343-H; 344-A, B, D]

CIVIL

AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal ~o. 767 of

2000.

From the Judgment and O,rder dated 9.8.1999 of Hon'ble National

C Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Original Petition

No.319ofl993.

Ms. Indira Jaising, Ms. Manjula Gupta for the Appellant.

R.K. Virmani, P. Venna, Arun K. Sinha, Sanjeev Shanna and Rohit Minocha

D for the Respondents.

The following Judgment

of the Court was delivered by :

DR.

A.S. ANAND, CJ. This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986 is directed against an order

of the National Consumer

E Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter the

"National Consumer

Forum") dated 9th August, 1999 dismissing a complaint filed by the appellant,

without expressing any opinion

on the merits of the case, but granting liberty

to the appellant to

"make a realistic claim" and move the State Commission

or the District Forum, as the case may be

in accordance with law. The National

Consumer Forum further directed that time spent before

it, should be taken

F into account for purpose of computing period of limitation by the appropriate

forum where the appellant moves his complaint.

G

With a view to dispose of this appeal, we would refer only to minimal

relevant facts as emerge from the record before us.

In 1993, according to the appellant, he went to the Healing Touch

Hospital, respondent No. 1 for treatment

of stomachache and burning sensation

while passing urine. He was examined by respondent No. 2, Dr.

A.J.S. Juneja,

who admitted him in respondent No. 1 hospital on 12.1.1993 for an operation

for removal

of

"stone from the Urethra". At the time of operation, it was

H respondent No. 4, Dr. Sunil Seth, who administered spinal anaesthesia to the

CHARAN SINGH v. HEALING TOUCH HOSP IT AL [DR. A.S. ANAND,C.J.) 341

appellant. Operation was perfonned. Certain complications, according to the A

appellant, arose on account of negligence of respondent No. l hospital and

its team

of doctors, both in the administration of spinal anaesthesia and

perfonning the operation. According to the appellant, he was paralysed on

the right hand side

of his body. He complained and was prescribed some

medicines and discharged from the hospital. Despite taking the prescribed

B

medicines, there was no improvement. He also started passing blood along

with urine.

On lst February, 1993, the appellant again went to respondent No.

1 hospital and met respondent No. 2, Dr. Juneja, who once again admitted him

to the hospital. On 9th of February, 1993, the appellant was advised to

undergo another operation to stop passing blood with urine. The appellailt

claims that he was taken to the operation theatre ·and after administering C

anaesthesia to him, when he was in a drowsy state, respondents No. 2 and

3, obtained his signatures on some papers. On 10.2.1993, after the appellant

regained consciousness, respondents No. 2 and 3 told him that he would be

discharged from the hospital within a couple

of days. The right side of his

body was, however, still paralytic and he complained about

it to the doctors

at the hospital. According to the appellant, on 18.2.1993, he was discharged

D

from respondent No. I hospital In the same paralytic condition. He was

prescribed some medicines which he kept on taking.

Since, paralytic condition

continued, the appellant went back to respondent No. 1 hospital where

respondent No. 2 asked him to

'go away' and not to return to the hospital

ever again. Appellant claims that, he, thereafter went

to Medical Diagnostic E

Centre, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.

On examination of his discharge slip and after

undertaking certain other tests, the appellant was told by the Diagnostic

Centre, that hi!> left kidney had been removed. The appellant was shocked to

hear this and went to respondent No. 3 in the hospital, who told him to meet

respondents No. 2 and 4. He asked them how they had removed his left

kidney during the second operation without his knowledge or consent. No

F

body was willing to talk to him in the hospital and he was made to go from

one doctor to another. Finally, he was turned away from the hospital without

providing any explanation. According to the appellant,

as a result of the

negligence

of doctors at respondent No. I hospital, he has become disabled

and handicapped with his right side being paralysed, for which has to use

G

crutches. His kidney has also been 'illegally' removed. He states that, as a

result, he also lost his job with M/s. Durga Lakshmi Builders

where he was

serving prior to his operation.

He states that he had to spend a fortune for

paying the exorbitant bills

of the doctors and the hospital besides medicines,

tests and for his upkeep. The appellant, thereupon, filed a complaint in the

National Consumer Fomm and claimed Rs. 34 lakhs by way

of compensation H

342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A from the respondents in 1993 on various grounds, under different heads.

The respondents were put to notice. They filed their counter statements

and replies, to which the appellant also filed his rejoinder. While the matters

rested thus, the National Consumer Forum passed the impugned order referred

to above, six years after the complaint was filed, on 9th August, 1999. Hence

B this appeal.

The appellant appeared

in person before us in this appeal and the Court

issued notice.

It appeared to the Court that on account of his disabilities and

handicap, the appellant was not

in a position

"to properly assist the Court. We,

C therefore, requested Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel, who was

present

in Court, to appear as amicus curiae, which she readily agreed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The impugned order

of the National Consumer Forum is very brief.

D While dismissing the complaint and relegating the appellant to approach

either the District Forum

or the State Commission, the National Consumer

Forum inter alia observed:

.E

F

" ... The Complainant was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,000 plus allowances.

This

is his allegation which is not admitted by the Opposite Party.

Even if we accept this contention is correct and even if we accept

that as a result

of wrong treatment given in the Hospital he has

suffered permanent disability, the claim

of Rs 34 lakhs made by the

Complainant

is excessive. We are of the view that this exaggerated

claim has been made only for the purpose

of invoking the jurisdiction

of this Commission ...

"

(Emphasis ours)

The National Consumer Forum, in our opinion, was not fair in disposing

of the complaint of the appellant by styling his claim as "exc~ssive" or

"exaggerated", after six years of the pendency of the complaint, and asking

G the appellant to move the State Commission or the District Forum by making

"a realistic claim" Whether the claim of the appellant was "realistic",

"exaggerated" or "excessive", could only have been determined after the

appellant had been given an opportunity to prove the case he had set

up and established his claim under various heads. It was not fair to call his claim

"unrealistic'', "exaggerated" or "excessive" without giving the appellant an

H opportunity to substantiate his case.

-

·-

,

.

CHARAN SINGH v. HEALING TOUCH HOSPITAL [DR. A.S. ANAND,C.J.] 343

Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Amicus, submitted that according to the A

appellant he had suffered paralysis on the right side and had also become

permanently disabled and his one kidney had been illegally removed. The

appellant had on that account suffered pain and suffering. He had also

undergone heavy expenditure for his operations, upkeep, tests medicines etc.

He had lost his job. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant should have

been given an opportunity to

substai;itiate his claim and the National Consumer B

Forum was not justified to observe that the claim put forward by the appellant

was "unrealistic'', "exaggerated" or "excessive" after referring to the salary of

the appellant only. According to Ms. Jai Singh, the National Consumer Forum,

was not right

in scuttling an enquiry into the claim of the appellant, in 'limine'

after keeping him waiting for six long years. According to her, the impugned

C

order violates the spirit with which the Consumer

Protection Act was enacted.

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the claim

of the

appellant was

"exaggerated" and "excessive" and the Forum rightly rejected

it, without giving any finding on merits so as not to prejudice the case of the

appellant before the District Forum or the State Commission.

After h~aring learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record,

we are constrained to say that we are not happy with the manner in which

the complaint

of the appellant has been disposed of.

D

Consumer

Protection Act is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation E

intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation. The Act

provides for an alternative system

of consumer justice by summary trial. The

authorities under the Act exercised quasi judicial powers for redressal

of

consumer disputes and it is one of the postulates of such a body that it

should arrive at a conclusion based on reason. The necessity to provide

reasons, howsoever, brief

in support of its conclusion by such a forum, is too F

obvious to be reiterated and needs no emphasising. Obligation to give reasons

not only introduces clarity but it also excludes, or at any rate minimizes, the

chances

of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of

those reasons.

Unfortunately we have not been .able to find from the impugned

order any reasons in support

of the conclusion that the claim of the appellant G

is

"unrealistic" or "exaggerated" or "excessive". Loss of salary is not the sole

factor which was required to be taken into consideration.

While quantifying damages, consumer forums are required to make an

attempt to serve ends

of justice so that ..;ompensation is awarded, in an

established case, which not only serves the purpose

of recompensing the H

344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative

change

in the attitude

of the service provider. Indeed, calculation of damages

depends on the facts and circumstances

of each case. No hard and fast rule

can

be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation,

Q

Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess

B compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is

for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it

reasonable, fair and proper

in the facts and circumstances of a given case

according to established judicial standards

where the claimant is able to

establish his charge.

C It is not merely the alleged harm or mental pain, agony or physical

discomfort, loss

of salary and emoluments etc. suffered by the appellant

which

is in issue -it is also the quality of conduct committed by the respondents

upon which attention

is required to be founded in a case of proven negligence.

It must be remembered that National Consumer Forum has jurisdiction,

D without pecuniary limitations, to award proper compensation, even less than

the one claimed in a given case, depending

upon the established facts and

circumstances

of that particular case and the evidence led by the parties. The

District Commission and the State Forum, on the other hand, have pecuniary

jurisdictional limitations for granting compensation beyond their jurisdictional

E limits.

Under Section 11 ( 1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District

Forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value

of the goods

or services and compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs. 5 lakhs.

Section I 7(a)

of the Act provides that State Commission shall have jurisdiction

to entertain complaints where the value

of goods or services and compensation,

if any, claimed exceeds Rs. 5 lakhs, but does not exceed Rs.

20 lakhs. In view

. F of these jurisdictional limitations of the District Forum and the State

Commission, these bodies would not be able to.award compensation, even

if

satisfied in a given case that the complainant was entitled to more compensation

than what he had claimed, beyond their pecuniary jurisdiction.

G That apart, in the present case, complaint petition filed by the appellant

for compensation was pending before the National Consumer Forum for six

long years. The pleadings had been completed. The National Consumer Forum

should have taken the complaint to its logical conclusion by asking the

parties to adduce evidence and rendered

its findings on merits. A mathematical

calculation based only on the amount

of salary being drawn by the appellant

H could not be the sole factor to be taken into consideration to style the claim

CHARAN SINGH v. HEALING TOUCH HOSP IT AL [DR. A.S. ANAND,C.J.] 345

of the appellant "unrealistic" or "exaggerated" or "excessive". The appellant A

has virtually been condemned unheard after waiting for six long years. The

legislative intent, for enacting the legislation,

of a speedy summary trial, to

settle the claim

of the complainant (consumers) has been respected in its

breach. The spirit

of the benevolent legislation has been overlooked and its

object frustrated by non-suiting the appellant in the manner

in which it has B

been done by the National Consumer Forum. The consumer forums must take

expeditious steps to deal with the complaints filed before

thei:n and not keep

them pending for years. It would defeat the object

of the Act, if summary trials

are not disposed

of expeditiously by the forums at the District,

State or

National levels. Steps in this direction are required to be taken in the right

earnest.

We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order

of the

National Consumer Forum and remand the complaint filed by the appellant to

the National Consumer Forum for its disposal

in accordance with law.

c

We clarify that what we have said above shall not be construed as any D

expression of opinion on the merits of the case, or the rights of the parties.

The complaint shall

be decided on its own merits in accordance with law.

We request the National Consumer Forum to dispose of the complaint

of the appellant expeditiously.

Before parting with this order,

we wish to place on record our appreciation

for the assistance rendered by learned Amicus,

Ms. Indira Jaising.

M.P. Appeal allowed.

E