1935 Present : Maartensz and Koch JJ.

SABAPATHY v. HUNTLEY.

328-D. C. Avissawella, 1,635.

Defamation-Statements made against Medical Officer-Charges of professional incompetence and negligence-Made to Director of Medical and Sanitary Services-Communication to the Chairman of Planters' Association who was also Member of Medical Wants Committee-Privilege-Truth of statements a complete defence-Appeal-Question, of fact-Decision of House of Lords-Evidence Ordinance, ss. 114 and 165.

Plaintiff, the District Medical Officer in charge of a Government hospital, sued the defendant, a planter, for the recovery of damages arising from certain defamatory statements made by the defendant , concerning the plaintiff.

The statements were made in a letter, which was addressed to the Director of Medical and Sanitary Services, a copy of which was sent to the Chairman of the Planters' Association of the District and was published in the newspapers as part of the proceedings of a meeting of the Association.

The Chairman of the Association was also a member of the Medical Wants Committee instituted under the provisions of the Medical Wants Ordinance, No. 12 of 1916.

The statements were also repeated by the plaintiff at an interview with the Director of Medical and Sanitary Services.

The statements charged the plaintiff with incompetence and negligence and with being perfunctory in the discharge of his professional work.

Held, that the statements were true in substance and in fact, and that truth was a complete answer to the action.

Where a plea of justification is raised to an action for defamation it means that the libel is true not only in its allegation of facts but also in any comments made thereon.

Held, further, that the statements to the Director at the interview were made on an occasion of qualified privilege but that the communication to the Chairman of the Planters' Association was not privileged.

Where a Judge examines a witness under section 165 of the Evidence Ordinance and the evidence given in answer to the questions is adverse to either party, leave should be given to that party to cross-examine the witness upon his answers.

Where a party is permitted to prove a document at a later stage of his case he should not be allowed to do so after his case is closed.

The principle laid down by the House of Lords in the case of Powell v. The Streatham Manor Nursing Home [1 (1935) A. C. 243.]-viz., " Where the question at issue is the proper inference to be drawn from facts, which are not in doubt, the Appellate Court is in as good a position to decide the question as the Judge at the trial is ", applied.

THE plaintiff, the Government Medical Officer at Karawanella, in charge of the Government Hospital Instituted this action against the defendant, a planter, for the recovery of Rs. 50,000 damages resulting from certain defamatory statements made by the defendant concerning the plaintiff.

The defendant, who was the superintendent of an estate, and his wife met with a serious motor accident and was brought to the Government Hospital for treatment. After they were discharged from hospital the defendant wrote to the Director of Medical and Sanitary Services complaining of the professional treatment received by him and his wife at the hands of the plaintiff.

The statements contained in the letter, which the plaintiff alleged were injurious to his name and reputation, were as follows : -

(a) A statement which refers to the " negligence and incompetence of the District Medical Officer at Karawanella ".

(b) A statement which refers to a " very perfunctory examination", meaning thereby that the plaintiff did work on the occasion in a very perfunctory manner.

(c) A statement which refers to the District Medical Officer whose one examination occupied only two or three minutes, meaning thereby that the plaintiff was negligent in his professional work.

The plaintiff f