Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI.; M.B. Shah & K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.
CHARAN SINGH—Appellant
versus
HEALING TOUCH HOSPITAL & ORS.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 767 of 2000—Decided on 20.9.2000
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 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 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 is "unrealistic" or "exaggerated" or ·excessive" - Loss of salary is not the sole factor which was required to be taken into consideration.
(Para 11)
The 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 could not be the sole factor to be taken into consideration to style the claim of the appellant "unrealistic" or "exaggerated" or "excessive". 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 (consumers) has been respected in its breach. The spirit of the benevolent legislation his been overlooked and its object frustrated by non-suiting the appellant in the manner in which it has been done by the National Consumer Forum. The consumer forums must take expeditious steps to deal with the complaints filed before them 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. (Para 15)
Held: Consequently, 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. (Para 16)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 14, 17 and 21 - Compensation -Quantification of - Consumer forums are required to make attempt to serve ends of justice - All relevant factors has to be taken into account and compensation must be assessed on basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation.
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 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, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess 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. (Para 12)
Result: Appeal allowed.
IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Complaint petition of a consumer cannot be dismissed by National Commission branding it unrealistic or exaggerated without giving an opportunity to complainant to substantiate his claim and without giving reason as to how claim was unrealic or exaggerated.
2. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess 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.
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI.—This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against an order of the National Consumer 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 into account for purpose of computing period of limitation by the appropriate forum where the appellant moves his complaint.
2. With a view to dispose of this appeal, we would refer only to minimal relevant facts as emerge from the record before us.
3. In 1993, according to the appellant, he went to the Healing Touch Hospital, respondent No. 1 for treatment of stomach ache 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 respondent No. 1, Dr. Sunil Seth, who administered spinal anaesthesia to the appellant. Operation was performed. Certain complications, according to the appellant, arose on account of negligence of respondent No. 1 hospital and its team of doctors, both in the administration of spinal anaesthesia and performing 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 medicines, there was no improvement. He also started passing blood alongwith urine. On 1st 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 of blood with urine. The appellant claims that he was taken to the operation threatre and after administering anaesthesia to him, when he was in a drowsy state, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 obtained his signatures on some papers. On 10.2.1993, after the appellant regained consciousness, respondent Nos. 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 from respondent No. 1 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 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 his left kidney had been removed. The appellant was shocked to hear this and went back to respondent No. 3 in the hospital, who told him to meet respondent Nos. 2 and 4. He asked them how they had removed his left kidney during the second operation without his knowledge or consent. No 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. 1 hospital, he has become disabled and handicapped with his right side being paralysed, for which he has to use 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 whe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
