CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on 04/06/2026)

Per Milind S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

2. F.A.No.627/2019 is filed by the ‘original complainant’. Respondent no.1 to 3 were ‘original opponent no.1 to 3’ and respondent no.4 was the ‘original opponent no.4’. F.A.No.637/2019 is filed by original opponent no.1 to 3. Respondent no.1 is the ‘original complainant’ and respondent no.4 is ‘original opponent no.4’. (For the sake of brevity we are referring the parties in both appeals by their original status in the consumer complaint)

3. The brief facts of the appeals are that, on 11/07/2007 at about 6.30 p.m. the complainant who is lawyer by profession went to opponent no.1 hospital with the complaint of headache, giddiness, unconsciousness. His wife and relatives accompanied him. Opponent no.2 , the doctor of opponent no.1 hospital examined him and in view of the clinical symptoms, took his blood sample and referred it to respondent no.3, which who is consulting pathologist, for HIV testing. The report of the same came positive for HIV. After the treatment the complainant was discharged from the hospital on 13/07/2007. It is alleged by him that, his report of HIV positive was informed to his wife and the relatives. On the discharge card it is written that, he was positive for HIV. This causes him tremendous shock and trauma. Thereafter, on the advice of Dr.Bharat Harane he went for another HIV test at Kushal Pathology on 14/07/2007. In that test he found to be HIV negative. So as to get the confirmation he also conducted one more test at Brain Pathology Lab on 06-12-2007, where also he found to be negative. He therefore claimed that, opponent no.1 to 3 declared him HIV positive without any confirmative test and also disclosed the confidential information to his wife and relatives contrary to his right of privacy. He filed the consumer complaint against the opponents before the District Commission and claimed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for trauma and Rs.14 lakhs for loss of present and future earnings.

4. It will be not out of place to mention here that, the complainant filed the complaint initially in 2009 in the District Commission. It was decided on 26/11/2010 in his favour and the District Commission directed the opponent to pay him sum of Rs.10 lakhs as a compensation. Opponent no.1 to 3 challenged that order before this Commission in F.A.No.65/2011. The same is rejected by this Commission on 02/12/2014 but scaled down the sum of compensation Rs.5 lakhs along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the appeal within six weeks failing which interest would be 12% p.a. The opponent challenged that decision before Hon'ble National Commission by filing Revision Petition No.4425/2014. The National Commission remanded back the matter to the District Commission on 26/02/2015 citing that, the opponents were negligent in conducting their defense before the District Commission and considering the issues involved in the matter there is a need to have the evidence of the doctor. The opponents are to be given an opportunity to lead the evidence. Thereafter, parties appeared before the District Commission and the matter was decided afresh on 15/07/2015, wherein it is directed by the District Commission that opponent no.1 to 3 shall pay Rs.15 lakhs as compensation to the complainant along with Rs.25,000/- as the costs of the proceedings.

5. Opponent no.1 to 3 and also the complainant challenged that decision again before this Commission by way of F.A.No.458/2015 and F.A.No.645/2015 respectively, which were decided by our learned predecessor bench on 10/10/2016 scaling down the amount of compensation to Rs.5 lakhs but interest awarded to the complainant on that sum from the date of filing of the complaint. Opponent no.1 to 3 again challenged that decision before the Hon'ble National Commission by filing R.P.No.3440/2016 & 3441/2016. Hon'ble National Commis