CHANDIGARH NURSING HOME AND ANR. versus SUKHDEEP KAUR

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 432 · Decided: 09-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
CHANDIGARH NURSING HOME AND ANR.
v.
SUKHDEEP KAUR
(Civil Appeal No. 5931 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 09, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.21(b) – Constitution of
India – Article 142 – Respondent, a minor suffered from wrong
diagnosis and treatment leading to rashes on her body beyond control
– Complaint filed by her through her father alleging medical
negligence against appellants – District Forum directed the
appellants to pay Rs.1 lakh with interest – Appeal by appellants,
dismissed by State Commission with cost – Revision application filed
by appellants, dismissed by National Commission, compensation
enhanced to Rs.10 lakhs – On appeal, held: At no point of time, the
respondent challenged the order passed by the District Forum
aggrieved by the quantum of compensation – Therefore, the order
passed by the District Forum attained finality insofar as the
respondent is concerned – Further, at the most, the National
Commission could have dismissed the revision application unless it
specifically exercises a suo moto revisional power u/s.21(b) –In the
present case, it does not appear that the National Commission
exercised the suo moto revisional power – Even otherwise, in absence
of any cogent reasons and/or material, the National Commission is
not justified in enhancing the amount of compensation – Amount of
compensation varies from person to person, looking to the damages
and/or disability suffered – Merely because in some cases, the
compensation has been enhanced, it cannot be enhanced in other
cases – Impugned order passed by the National Commission set
aside – However, on facts, in exercise of the powers u/Article 142,
compensation enhanced to Rs.4 lakhs.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The District Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh
as compensation to the original complainant. However, the
original complainant did not carry the matter further to the State
Commission and the appellants herein – original opponents being
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 432
432
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
433
aggrieved by the order of District Forum preferred the appeal
before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed
the appeal and the appellants herein – original respondents being
aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission preferred
the revision petition/application before the National Commission.
At no point of time, the original complainant challenged the order
passed by the District Forum aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation determined by the District Forum. Therefore, as
such, the order passed by the District Forum attained finality
insofar as the original complainant is concerned. In a revision
application preferred by the original respondents – appellants
herein challenging the order passed by the District Forum
confirmed by the State Commission, the National Commission
while dismissing the revision application has enhanced the amount
of compensation. At the most, the National Commission could
have dismissed the revision application unless the National
Commission specifically exercises a suo moto revisional power
in exercise of the powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986. In the present case, from the impugned
judgment and order passed by the National Commission, it does
not appear that the National Commission exercised the suo moto
revisional power. Even the appellants herein – original
revisionists were not put to notice that the National Commission
is to enhance the amount of compensation in exercise of the
revisional power - the suo moto revisional jurisdiction. The
appellants herein – original revisionists are taken by surprise
and the National Commission without giving any opportunity to
them has enhanced the amount of compensation. Therefore, on
this ground also, the impugned judgment and order passed by
the National Commission enhancing the amount of compensation
in the revision application preferred by the appellants herein is
unsustainable. Even otherwise, in absence of any cogent reasons
and/or material, the National Commission is not justified in
enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 10 lakhs. While
enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 10 lakhs, the
National Commission has just referred to few decisions of this
Court in paragraph 14 and thereafter has straightaway enhanced
the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation varies
from person to person, looking to the damages an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.