CHARAN SINGH versus HEALING TOUCH HOSPITAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 337 · Decided: 20-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

CHARAN SINGH 
v. 
HEALING TOUCH HOSPITAL AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., M.B. SHAH AND 
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, I 986: 
A 
B 
Section 23-National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission C 
dismissing a complaint after six years of its pendency without expressing any 
opinion on the merits of the case, on the ground that the claim made was 
excessive-Legality of-Held, the National Conslfmer Forum was not fair in 
disposing of the complaint by styling the claim as "excessive" or 
"exaggerated"-Whether the claim was realistic, exaggerated, or excessive, D 
could only have been determined after the complainant had been given an 
opportunity to prove the case he had set up-Loss of salary is not the sole 
factor which was required to be taken into consideration-The complainant 
has virtually been condemned unheard after waiting for six long years and. 
the legislative intent for enacting the legislation of a speedy summary trial, 
to settle the claim 'of the complainant has been breached in this respect-
E 
Impugned Order of the National Consumer Forum set aside and complaint 
filed by the complainant remanded to the National Consumer Forum for its 
disposal in accordance with law. 
Sections I I (1), I 7(a)-Compensation-Quantification of-Held, 
National Consumer Forum has jurisdiction, without pecuniary limitations, to F 
award proper compensation, even less than the one claimed in a given case, 
depending upon the established facts and circumstances of that particular 
case-The District Forum and the State Forum, on the other hand, have 
pecuniary jurisdictional limitations for granting compensation beyond their 
jurisdictional limits. 
Appellant went to the respondent hospital for treatment of stomach 
ache and burning sensation while passing urine. He was admitted for an 
operation for removal of stone. Certain complications arose on account of 
negligence, both in the administration of spinal anaesthesia and performing 
G 
the operation, as a result of which he was paralysed on the right side of his H 
337 
338 
SUPREME COURT .REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A body. The respondent was ;>rescribed some medicines and discharged from 
the hospital. Despite taking the prescribed medicines, there was no 
improvement. He also started passing blood along with urine. He was advised 
to undergo another operation to stop passing of blood with urine. When the 
appellant was taken to the operation theatre and after administering 
B anaesthesia to him, when he was in drowsy state respondent nos. 2 and 3, 
obtained his signatures on some papers. He was discharged from the hospital 
after a few days with his right side of the body still paralytic. He was 
prescribed some medicines which he kept on taking. Since paralytic condition 
continued, the appellant went back to respondent no. I hospital where 
respondent no. 2 asked him to leave the hospital and not to return to the 
C hospital ever again. Thereafter, the appellant went to Medical Diagnostic 
Centre wherein he was told that his left kidney had been removed. He went 
back to the respondent hospital from where he was turned away without any 
explanation. 
Thereupon, the appellant filed a complaint before the National Consumer 
D Disputes Redressal Commission. He claimed Rs. 34 lacs by way of 
compensation from the respondents on various grounds, under different heads. 
The National Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint without expressing 
any opinion on the merits of the case, but granting liberty to the appellant 
"to make a realistic claim" and move the State Forum or the District Forum, 
E as the case may be in accordance with law. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the National Consumer 
Forum was not justified in its observation that the claim put forward by the 
appellant was unrealistic, exaggerated or excessive after referring to his 
salary only; that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to 
F substantiate his claim; that the National Consumer Forum was not right in 
scuttling an inquiry into the clai111: ,of the appellant in 'limine' after keeping 
him waiting for six long years; that the impugned order violates the spirit 
with which the Consumer Protection Act was enacted. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the claim of the 
G appellant was exaggerated and excessive and the National Consumer Forum 
rightly rejected it, without giving any findings on

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