JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER

            Sushil Kumar Gupta & Ajay Gupta have filed instant complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in the treatment of their mother which attributed to her death with following prayers:

“a.        Order the defendant / opp. Party to immediately pay an amount of Rs.1.5 crore to the complainants as compensation for causing the wrongful death of the complainants mother on 16.08.2014 by gross medical negligence in her prompt and proper medical treatment as per the Standard Medical Protocols alongwith interest @ 12% per annum compound till payment.

b.         Order the defendant / opp. Party to immediately pay an amount of Rs.150 crore to the Govt. of India as the ultimate guardian of the people of India by way of punitive damages for unfair trade practices committed on countless people of India which amount is to be utilized for setting up another medical facility any where in Delhi in the nature of AIIMS Extension.

c.         Order the defendant / opp. Party to pay the complainants the entire costs and expenses of this Complaint.

d.         Any other or further relief as the Hon’ble National Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case be kindly awarded to the complainants against the defendant / opp. Party.”

2.         On reading of the prayer clause, we find that amount of compensation of rupees 1.5 crores claim by the complainants is highly unrealistic and unreasonable. Therefore, we have heard the complainant no.1 who has appeared for self as well as complainant no.2 on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction.

3.         Para 20 of the complaint gives details of computation of the compensation, which is reproduced as under:

“a.        Loss of income suffered by the Complainant’s mother by her 10 year premature death by way of family pension from the MCD aggregating to over Rs.40 Lakhs @ over Rs.4 Lakhs per year on the average or over Rs.1000/- per day with D.A. and Pay Commission increases ( True copy of P.N.B. pension passbook showing pension of Rs.28,440/- for Aug. 2014 is annexure C-4) without any deduction towards personal expenses which could be easily met from the moveable and immovable assets of the complainant’s mother aggregating over Rs.50 lakhs ( True copy of the Assessment List of City Board, Mussorie in respect of 480 sq. ft. 2 Bedroom Ground Floor Flat at Upper Mall Road, Mussorie in the ownership of Smt. Vimla Gupta valuing between 45-0 lakhs is annexure C-5) with further availability of any amount as of legal right from the moveable and immovable assets of the complainants aggregating over Rs.1  crore each.

b.         Loss of life / Loss of enjoyment of life suffered by the Complainant’s mother by her 10 year premature death aggregating to minimally Rs.73 lakhs @ minimally Rs.2000/- per day on the average according to her social, financial and family status with permanent spending capacity of over Rs.2000/- per day, when every person even the physically handicapped, disable, uneducated and poor wants to live and enjoy the God given life as “homo Sapiens” to its fullest extent in these high-tech times where there are innumerable means of enjoyment and entertainment which make every person’s life worth living upto the very end despite any handicaps and disablements which can be managed by various aids and assistance available in the present times, the value of life of a person being fully greater than the sum total of his / her wealth and each and every citizen being guaranteed the right to life under the Constitution of India itself, full justice to the victims requires their fullest compensation from such highly commercialized private enterprizes which are liable to pay the full price of the life of their victims as per their status by way of amend and deterrence as no person can willing consent to be deprived of his / her invaluable life by others even on payment of compensation equalling his / her entire wealth which any person will readily forego in order to save his / her life, hence the compensation payable for causing the wrongful or involuntary death of  a person has to be indisputably and unquestionably higher than the wealth of the person involuntarily deprived of his / her life, at least double the amount by way of just and reasonable solatium in such circumstances, wherefore the complainant’s mother having wealth of over Rs.50 lakhs on the date of her death further to her family pension, is fully entitled in law, equity and justice to compensation of minimally Rs.73 lakhs and maximally Rs.100 lakhs for loss of life involuntarily inflicted on her by the highly priced Fortis Hospital through gross carelessness and negligence of its staff, all contingencies being taken care of in the insurance cover of the Fortis Hospital which is indirectly charged in the medical bills of its in-patients.

c.         Loss of mother’s companionship suffered by the complainants by her 10 year premature death aggregating to minimally Rs.18.25 lakhs each @  minimally Rs.500/- per day each on the average according to the financial status of the complainants who deeply miss the daily interactions with their beloved mother who is fully irreplaceable by any other person and by whose death the life of the complainants has also been adversely affected to a great degree as the loss of mother has left a permanent and painful void in the life of the complainants, the cost of a well educated, trustworthy and devoted female companion from the open market being approx. Rs.500/- per day, a mother’s companionship is infinitely more endearing and inspiring than that of any female companion from the open market who can never match the love and affection of a natural mother towards her sons and vice versa.

d.         Expenses incurred by complainants in obtaining authoritative medical opinions, case law and preparing this complaint aggregating to Rs.50,000/- during the last two years.”

4.         Para 20 clause (b) records that Rs.73 lakhs has been claimed on account of compensation for loss of life as also loss of enjoyment of life suffered by the complainants deceased mother.  The said loss obviously was caused to the deceased.  Therefore, cause of action for filing any complaint in respect of that loss does not survive to the complainants.  Besides the above noted loss, the complainants have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.18,25,000/- each for loss of companionship besides loss of income suffered due to death of the complainants mother.  As per the allegations in para 20 (a), the deceased mother of the complainants was getting Rs.4,00,000/- per year as family pension.  Even if the said figure is taken to be true and had the mother of the complainants survived for ten years, the total family pension received by her would have been Rs.40,00,000/- , out of which obviously some amount the mother of the complainants would have incurred on her upkeep and maintenance. Taking the said amount to be  one-third of her income, the loss of income as per the allegations amounts to Rs.28,00,000/-.  On adding said figure with the compensation for loss of companionship suffered by the complainants mother i.e.  Rs. 36,50,000/-, the amount of loss adds upto Rs.64,50,000/-.  Besides Rs.50,000/- has been claimed as expenses for obtaining authoritative medical opinions.  Thus, even if the claim of the complainant is taken as true, then also the amount spent on treatment i.e. Rs.36,875/- plus the compensation claimed by the complainants in the event of proof would be less than rupees one crore.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the National Commission which is above rupees one crore in view of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provide that the complaints where the value of goods and services and compensation claimed exceeds rupees one crore.   It appears that quantum of compensation has been inflated with a view to defeat the hierarchy of the system.

5.         In view of the discussion above, the instant complaint is not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.  It is accordingly rejected with liberty to the complainants to approach the forum having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.