Publication must be proven defamatory and harmful to reputation; factual reporting does not constitute defamation.

JUDGMENT

The defendants in O.S. 310 of 1990 before the Sub Court, Kozhikode, who are slapped with a decree are the appellants. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court.

2. The suit was one for compensation for defamation. At the relevant time the plaintiff was working as the Director and Professor of Psychiatry and Vice-Principal of Medical College, Calicut. He was the Head of the Department. The complaint is that the first defendant publishing company published a news item in its edition on 24.8.1989, which had a caption as follows: “ക(cid:2)ത(cid:4)വ(cid:6)ക(cid:2)(cid:8)പ(cid:10)(cid:11)ള സ(cid:15)ച(cid:4)വ(cid:10)(cid:11)ട(cid:4) ശര(cid:20)രത(cid:4)ലകയറ(cid:4)യത(cid:4)ന(cid:2)(cid:26)

""മപന(cid:11)പര(cid:11)ഗ ച(cid:4)ക(cid:4)ലസ"”'”.

S.A.691/1997. 2

3. The gist of the article is mentioned in the plaint. Since both the courts below have extracted the same, it is unnecessary to narrate it again. Suffice it to say, the claim of the plaintiff is that the above news item and its consequences brought him ridicule and humiliation and he fell in the eyes of the general public. He claimed that he had not treated the patient, about whom reference was made in the article. The article, so far as his role was concerned, was incorrect. He therefore sued the defendants.

4. The defendants resisted the suit. They admitted the publication of the article. According to them, it is after verification that the news item was published. A patient, who was brought to the plaintiff by Dr. Moidu, according to the defendants, was attended to by the plaintiff and he suggested certain treatments. The diagnosis was 'convulsion distress' and in the column diagnosis it was written as 'fecteious disorders' and the medicine was also prescribed to him. The drugs so prescribed is one which is usually recommended for mentally distressed persons.

S.A.691/1997. 3 Later on the patient met another doctor, who on taking an X-ray found that there was a broken needle stuck in his limb and that was the cause of pain. The defendants maintained that they only published the truth and they had no intention to malign or defame the plaintiff. No loss of reputation or any injury was caused to the plaintiff by the publication of the article since the publication only narrates what had actually transpired. They therefore prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A3 from the side of the plaintiffs. The defendants had D.Ws. 1 and 2 examined and Exts. B1 to B6 marked. Ext.X1 is the third party exhibit. The trial court on an evaluation of the evidence in the case found that all that had been reported is only what had actually transpired and there is no untruth in any of the facts stated in the article. It was found that it was after making proper enquiry that the news item was S.A.691/1997. 4 published by the defendants in the newspaper. The trial court formed an opinion that after going through the evidence available on record, there was nothing wrong in the news item and it did not suggest the so-called certificate was issued by the plaintiff. The trial court found that it could not be said that the patient was not attended to by the plaintiff. On the basis of these findings, the suit was dismissed.

6. The lower appellate court on the other hand differed with the trial court. It formed an opinion that the article was per se defamatory and then went on to discuss whether proper enquires had been made by the fourth defendant before publication was made. The lower appellate court found that the enquiry made by the fourth defendant to be very unsatisfactory and therefore mulcted the defendants with liability.

7. The said judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is assailed in this appeal.

S.A.691/1997. 5

8. The following questions of law are seen raised in the memorandum of Second appeal:

“i)