SUJATA NATH Vs. POPULAR NURSING HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above named complainant has filed this complaint before this Commission seeking total compensation of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one crore fifty lakhs only) with interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of actual payment of compensation alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in giving treatment to her. THE precise allegation of negligence and deficiency in service being that during the course of her treatment for the fracture of her hip and pelvis joint, blood was transfused to her and the said blood was infected as a result of which the complainant became HIV positive due to which she has suffered in various ways and would require huge funds for HIV medication. THE breakup of the amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- claimed by the claimant from the opposite parties on account of the alleged deficiencies in service is as under: - Sl. No. Particulars Amount claimed (in Rupees)

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Rana Mukherjee and Ms. Uttara Babbar, Advocates learned Counsel for the complainant on the entertainability of the present complaint by this Commission. In particular we enquired from the learned counsel for the complainant as to the basis of quantification of the claim at Rs. 1.5 crores. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant is free to claim the compensation as per her own assessment keeping in view the extent of the loss and injury suffered by her. In any case, the submission is that going by the peculiar facts of the present case, the complainant has not made any excessive claim inasmuch as the kind of injury and stigma suffered by the complainant due her becoming a HIV positive patient and the treatment of which she may require huge money. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on a number of decisions of the Honble Supreme Court viz. [Tara Devi Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, (1987) 4 SCC 69]. In the case of Nandita Bose Vs. Ratanlal Nahata, (1987) 3 SCC 705 the Honble Supreme Court held. In the later case, the Honble Supreme Court has held as under: The principles which regulate the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts are well settled. Ordinarily, the valuation of a suit depends upon the reliefs claimed therein and the plaintiffs valuation in his plaint determines the court in which it can be presented. It is also true that the plaintiff cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court by either grossly over-valuing or grossly under-valuing a suit. The court always has the jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of law. But the question whether she was entitled to claim mesne profits or damages in respect of the period subsequent to February 1, 1985 could not have been disposed of at a preliminary stage even before the trial had commenced. That question has to be decided at the conclusion of the trial alongwith other issues arising in the suit. Having regard to some of the decisions on which reliance is placed by the appellant in the course of the appeal we are of the view that the matter is not free from doubt

(3.) THUS, having considered the matter, we are of the view that the complainant should suitably amend her complaint so as to make the claim of compensation within the legitimate / reasonable limits and to file the same before the appropriate Consumer Forum.