P K NIYOGIKARAN Vs. PRAVEEN NISHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2004 passed in Civil Suit No.1-B/1998 by the Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, District Koria, wherein the suit for damages of Rs.1,00,000/- was dismissed by the learned Court below for alleging defamatory publication made in newspaper on the ground that justification of truth exists on the published news item. After dismissal of the suit, in this appeal, the appeal value was reduced to Rs.50,000/- for damages.

(2.) The plaintiffs' suit was that Dr. P.K.Niyogi carries on Sonography Centre at Mahendragarh and Dr. C.P. Karan carries on Nursing Home by name and style as Dr. Karan Nursing Home at Manendragarh. It was stated that both the Doctors have acquired reputation and name by their work of extending different medical help to the people and were popular amongst the public. It was stated that they were respected in all the circles of the society. However, the defendant Praveen Nishi, who was a Publisher, Printer & Chief Editor of newspaper namely Ghoomta Darpan in between the period from 16.10.1997 to 31.10.1997 published news that the Doctors are committing dacoity with the poor in a news captioned as [1] It was further published that the plaintiffs without any reason used to give injection to the patient and used to recover Rs.40-50/- fees, thereafter, used to prescribe medicine of Rs.40- 50/- and without any reason they were subjected to sonography and were sent to a Sharma Pathology for blood & urine tests thereby were looting poor people. The plaintiffs stated because of such publication, the plaintiffs' image were tarnished which ultimately caused damage to reputation and reduction of their practice. The plaintiffs contended that they are competent Doctors and only in case of need, injection were prescribed to the patient and only on felt need patients were subjected to sonography and blood & urine test. The plaintiffs further stated that they have served the defendant a notice to apologies but despite service of notice, the defendant neither replied it nor extended his apology; therefore, a suit for defamation of damages of Rs.1,00,000/- was filed.

(3.) The defendant in his reply denied the averments and averred that the publication of news was made in the public interest and in all bonafide without any intention of damaging the reputation of plaintiffs. It was stated that since the duty of a Doctor is related to the public on day to day basis the publication of like nature were made. It was stated that considering the plight of the general public mainly the tribal backward people, considering their problem, the publication of the news was made. It was stated that because of the publication no damage was caused to the profession of the plaintiffs and dismissal was prayed for.