The court's pecuniary jurisdiction and the assessment of compensation for medical negligence were central to the judgment.

Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President— For the limited purpose of adjudicating on the pecuniary jurisdiction of this complaint, it is unnecessary to delve too deeply into the facts and merits.

2. It suffices to mention that on the complainant’s own showing, he is a matriculate and runs a, small cloth shop in his native village at Bhana. On the 26th of March, 1993 he fell down from a stool in his shop causing an injury to his left fore-arm. He was given orthopaedic treatment with surgery by Dr. R. K. Jindal, the proprietor of M/s. Jindal Dental and Orthopaedic Clinic at Kaithal on 27.3.1993. The allegation is that the plate inserted in the fore-arm subsequently got infected and the complainant had to seek medical assistance in the Orthopaedic Department of the P.G.I, on the 18th of June, 1993. On the allegations of medical negligence against Dr. R.K. Jindal, a somewhat tall claim of compensation to the tune of Rs. 14 lacs in the relief clause has been raised, though in the heading the damages sought were only 10 lacs.

3. Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, the learned Counsel for the complainant was somewhat hard-put to bring the case within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission at a figure of Rs. 5 lacs or above. It was sought to be argued that because of the alleged closure of the complainant’s shop and the pain and suffering consequent upon the negligence of the opposite party resulting in an infection, an overall amount of Rs. 14 lacs is the complainant’s due.

4. We are afraid that there is little or no merit in the stand of the learned Counsel to bring the case within the jurisdiction of this Commission. A persual of the pleadings in the complaint itself would show that these far from resting on a foundations of fact are somewhat imaginary and the computed loss of Rs. 14 lacs is at a level to which it cannot reasonably or even possibly be stretched. The main stress is upon the apprehended suffering and injury had the infection led to the amputation of the arm and on the basis of patently remote damages on the ground of the alleged loss of business by the supposed closure of the complainant’s cloth shop. It seems unnecessary to elaborate the matter further, because it seems to come squarely within the ambit of the rationale of the recent order of this Commission in Complaint Case No. 70 of 1993 ‘S.K. Monga of Chandigarh v. BajajAuto Ltd. of Pune and Others, decided on 18th of October, 1993. Therein it was held in terms that the mere apprehended hazard or jeopardy to life and limb were not commensurable in the consumer jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act. It bears repetition that herein the primal foundation of injury is rested on the purported threat of amputation of the complainant’s fore-arm which is said to have been saved only because of the timely intervention of the treatment at the P.G.I.

5. Equally it was concluded in the said case as follows :

“In view of the above, the answer to the second question is rendered in the negative. It is held that the computation of his monetary claim for compensation of loss and injury by the complainant alone does not conclusively govern the pecuniary jurisdiction of the redressal agencies under the Act.”

6. In the light of the above, it is plain that the complainant’s assessment of his loss far from being conclusive has patently been inflated in order to bring the matter within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. We are firmly of the opinion that even when viewed with the utmost liberality, the compensation awardable in the case cannot come even remotely to the figure of Rs. five lacs, which is the minimum for entertaining the complaint.

7. To finally conclude, this complaint is plainly not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and is hereby directed to be returned for presentation to the competent District Forum or to seek any other relief as the complainant may be advised.

Complaint dismissed.