Vijaya Raghavan vs DHEG

THIS action has come up for admission before us today.

WE heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. Selvam Soundar. WE also perused the averments in the complaint and connected materials placed on record. Such perusal reveals the following factors : (1) The complainant Mr. Vijaya Raghavan aged about 70 years had undergone surgery for fixing of an artificial tooth in his left jaw at the opposite party hospital, viz., Saveetha Dental College Hospital. The artificial tooth, it appears, was not fixed properly and consequently so much of pain erupted to him necessitating a second surgery.

(2) The artificial tooth was removed and a new tooth was put in its place. Even then, the complainant, it is said, felt excess pain. This apart, food particles got stuck up in the gap between the artificial tooth and the other natural teeth. Again the artificial tooth so fixed was stated to have broken.

(3) The complainant, it appears, took treatment by a private Doctor by name Dr. A. Venkatachalapathy. Once again he underwent surgery and the artificial tooth was fixed again. In such process, it was found that during the earlier surgeries done by the opposite party hospital, three other teeth were also broken and those three teeth were also removed.

The complainant, alleging the factors as above, knocked at the doors of this Commission praying for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party hospital.

No doubt true it is, as revealed by the averments in the complaint that the complainant Mr. Vijaya Raghavan availed of the services of the opposite party hospital for consideration in fixing an artificial tooth on his left jaw. He would allege that in the process of such fixing, there was negligence on the part of the Doctors attached to the said opposite party hospital in fixing the artificial tooth in his left jaw. For the said deficiency in service, he would claim : (a) an amount of Rs. 785/- collected towards the charge for fixing the artificial tooth; (b) Rs. 5 lakhs compensation towards pain, suffering and mental agony; and (c) Rs. 500/- towards cost of the proceedings. all totalling to Rs. 5,01,285/-.

NEITHER the necessary and requisite averments had been made in the complaint nor any tangible material placed on record to point out as to how a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation has been quantified towards pain and suffering and mental agony he had undergone. The complainant, we rather feel, quantified the compensation amount in an astronomical figure of Rs. 5 lakhs just to knock at the doors of this Commission. The reason for making such a claim of compensation is that he need not pay any Court-fee at all. If at all the complainant is entitled to any compensation in the event of his proving the negligence on the part of the doctors attached to the opposite party hospital, such compensation and charges he has paid for fixing the artificial tooth inclusive of costs cannot go beyond the pecuniary value of jurisdiction of the competent District Forum. In such circumstances, the complaint as filed before us is returned to be presented before the competent District Forum, of course after making necessary and requisite amendment in the prayer column within 15 days from today. Ordered accordingly.