The court's decision was influenced by the jurisdictional limitations and the assessment of the total amounts spent by the complainant and the quantum of compensation she would be entitled to.

Mr. Justice M.S. Janarthanam, President—This action has come up for admission before us today. We have perused the averments in the complaint and also the documents filed alongwith it. Such perusal reveals the following factors :

(1) The 1st complainant Revathy is the mother of the 2nd complainant M. Indu, Minor. During her pregnancy, it appears, she took treatment with the 1st opposite party-Doctor Chandra who is the Proprietor of the 2nd opposite party-Chandra Hospital. The 2nd complainant was born in the 2nd opposite party-hospital and the doctor in charge of the delivery was the 1st opposite party-Dr. Chandra.

(2) It appears, it is a case of breach.

(3) The child, it appears, was forcibly taken with the uses of forceps without resorting to ceaserian operation.

(4) Because of the baby have been forcibly taken out by means of forceps, it appears, due to internal injury caused in such process, puss had been developed in joints and various portions of the body of the baby.

(5) The baby was operated on various parts of the body for the removal of the puss.

(6) Because of the alleged callous negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party, the 2nd complainant baby was put to face the agonising situation of operation for the removal of the puss formed on the joints and other portions of the body and the act of the 1st opposite party in such circumstances would prima facie tantamount to deficiency in service on her part.

2. Alleging the factors as above, the complainant resorted to the institution of proceedings before this Commission for certain reliefs as prayed for in this complaint.

3. The reliefs claimed in the complaint is for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the amount stated to have been spent on the birth of the 2nd complainant, due to the callous, negligent and deficient service rendered by the opposite parties in extracting the 2nd complainant without any experience and by not giving proper aftercare and also for a direction to them to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- by way of compensation for hardship and tension undergone by the 1st complainant during the course of delivery and also for mental agony, suffering, pain, tension, etc.

4. We heard the arguments of learned Counsel Hspsiba representing learned Counsel Mr. T. Mathi, appearing for the complainant.

5. The factors mentioned above as being culled out from the averments made in the complaint and other connected documents filed alongwith it prima facie point out deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for making a further enquiry into the matter.

6. However, a question crops up for consideration as to whether the further enquiry is required to be made by this Commission or by the competent District Fora on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. We rather feel that the materials placed on record do not at all prima facie point out that the jurisdiction of this Commission would get attracted and if at all the jurisdiction of the competent District Fora would get attracted for the entertainment of this complaint. This complainant would claim that she had spent about Rs. 2,00,000/- for the birth of the 2nd complainant and the subsequent operations the 2nd complainant minor underwent. No scrap of paper worth the name had been placed on record pointing out that she in fact spent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. This apart, she would also claim compensation quantified in a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- for the mental agony, hardship, tension, etc., she has undergone in the process of delivery. No details had been given for the computation of the said amount of compensation. We rather feel that the amount of compensation had been purposely escalated so as to attract the jurisdiction of this Commission added by the fact that no Court-fee need be paid for any amount of compensation claimed before the Commission or the Fora constituted under the provisions of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are o