ORDER Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This is an appeal against the order dated 7.3.2003 passed by the District Forum, whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed and compensation of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) awarded for medical negligence of the doctor. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has filed a complaint on 22.4.2002 that he is literate unemployed and social youth. He has been donating blood to the needy persons at occasions. On 2.4.2002, the daughter-in-law of Sh. Dharam Singh, the relative of the complainant, was in need of blood. The complainant offered to donate blood. He went to City Hospital, Haldwani where Dr. J.S. Bhandari referred the complainant to Dr. H.S. Chadha, Diagnostic Clinical Laboratory for examination of the blood. The blood was examined by the Diagnostic Clinical Laboratory and it was reported to be unfit for donation. It was written in the examination report that the complainant was suffering from Australia-antigen (H.B. Antigen) disease. Looking the report, the complainant went in mental agony and depresssion that he is suffering from such a dangerous disease. The friends of the complainant advised him to get him re-examined and on 3.4.2002, they took the complainant to a renowed doctor, Dr. N.K. Pandey of Haldwani who referred the complainant to R.L. Memorial Pathology Centre, Haldwani for re-examination where the complainant was found not suffering from any such disease as was declared by the opposite party. Again when the complainant went to the opposite party, Dr. H.S. Chadha told that, that report is incorrect and he still persisted that the complainant is suffering from the said disease. It is alleged that the complainant has spent about Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred). He claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) as compensation and cost of litigation. 3. The opposite party (hereinafter called the appellant) filed the written statement and admitted that he has conducted the test and gave the report of Australia-antigen being positive. The person whose blood was tested was advised to consult Dr. J.S. Bhandari by whom he was referred for test, to get the report given by the opposite party confirmed by more sensitive test in view of technical limitations of pathological test. It is said that the person whose blood was examined was directed to undergo the confirmatory test and there is no question of any disappointment without confirmatory test. J.S. Bhandari by whom he was referred for test, to get the report given by the opposite party confirmed by more sensitive test in view of technical limitations of pathological test. It is said that the person whose blood was examined was directed to undergo the confirmatory test and there is no question of any disappointment without confirmatory test. It is alleged that there was no deficiency in the service of the opposite party. 4. The learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties also referred the matter to the CMO, Nainital, who appointed a penal of doctors and who has given a report that the complainant was not suffering from any such disease and, therefore, the report of the appellant is incorrect. Therefore the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) was allowed. Against which order the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. We have first to see what is the report of the doctor. Dr. H.S. Chadha has examined the complainant on 2.4.20002 and found Australia-antigen (HB Ag.) as positive. The other day, on 3.4.2002, the complainant was examined by Dr. N.K. Saraf of R.L. Memorial Pathology Centre who is M.B.B.S., D.C.P. (Consultant Pathologist). D.C.P. means Diploma in Clinical Pathology. It is a matter of dispute whether a doctor possessing a degree of M.Sc., Ph. D. (Medical Biochemistry) can undergo pathological test but atleast Dr. N.K. Saraf had the diploma in doing the pathology test. In the report of Dr. H.S. Chadha dated 2.4.2002, it is written that Australia-antigen (HBs Ag) is positive while in the report of Dr. N.K. Saraf dated 3.4.2002, it is written that HB Ag (Australia-antigent); negative. The difference is only of one day. The matter was referred by the Forum to the Chief Medical Officer, Nainital on 16.9.2002, who by his report dated 5.10.2002 examined by a penal of doctors, all of them were pathologists and they reported that on examination, HB Ag. (Australia-antigen) was found negative. However, they further reported that the examination as done by them is not “final”. It should be examined by ELISA Test which facility is not available with them. Although there is no evidence on record but the complainant wanted to say that he has undergone ELISA test and there too, it was found negative. (Australia-antigen) was found negative. However, they further reported that the examination as done by them is not “final”. It should be examined by ELISA Test which facility is not available with them. Although there is no evidence on record but the complainant wanted to say that he has undergone ELISA test and there too, it was found negative. The paper was not filed before the learned Forum till the date of arguments, it was also not desired to be filed here as additional evidence, therefore, that piece of evidence was returned without perusal of the Commission but nevertheless the fact remains that except Dr. H.S. Chadha everybody has found the HBs negative. The learned Counsel for the appellant wanted to show a literature—Robbins Pathology 5th Ediction to say that HB Ag appears before the onset of symptoms and peaks during overt disease. It usually declines to undetectable levels in 3 to 6 months. The learned Counsel for the complainant wanted to argue that this literature is not admissible but we do not agree to this argument because an authoritative book is always used as an authority and it cannot be brushed aside. This argument is that the symptoms of the disease may disappear within 6 months may be correct but nevertheless the fact remains that on 2.4.2002, the complainant was reported positive and on 3.4.2002, he was reported negative. 6. We agree that error of judgment is no ground to hold a person guilty but one thing is very much clear that one who is just should at least speak truth and should come before the Court, Forum or any other Authority only with trust and when he starts speaking untrue facts, his entire case is looked with suspicion and is often rejected. We shall take the case of Dr. H.S. Chadha in this light. A very fanstastic plea has been taken that the identity of Sh. Bhagwan Singh is not established that it is he who got his examination done in his laboratory and again it was the same Bhagwan Singh who got his blood tested in R.L. Memorial Pathology Centre. This plea is fantastic. At least the appellant has examined Sh. Bhagwan Singh. He was referred to the appellant by Dr. J.S. Bhandari. The doctor should have asked from Dr. J.S. Bhandari about the identity of Sh. This plea is fantastic. At least the appellant has examined Sh. Bhagwan Singh. He was referred to the appellant by Dr. J.S. Bhandari. The doctor should have asked from Dr. J.S. Bhandari about the identity of Sh. Bhagwan Singh and if he was not satisfied at least one person with the name of Sh. Bhagwan Singh appeared before him, he was reported to be positive with Australia-antigen. Nobody on earth will believe that a person who is found positive with the disease will sit himself idle at the residence and will send another person who is not having positive symptoms to get him examined and get report so that he may file a complaint against the appellant because he is a very poor man, unemployed and social worker. Anybody on earth who is reported with such disease shall immediately rush up to another doctor for examination and the complainant has filed specific evidence that it is he who was examined by Dr. H.S. Chadha and again by R.L. Memorial Pathology Centre. Dr. Chadha should have enquired from R.L. Memorial Pathology Centre about the identity of the said person. Merely to gain some money from the doctor, a person with positive symptoms will not sit idle but will himself get examined and true enough if R.L. Memorial Pathology Centre also should have given a positive report, the complainant or anybody on earth would not have filed a complaint against the appellant. We have got no appreciation for a doctor who takes such kind of pleas that identity is not established. 7. Now coming to the other falsehood in the case of the appellant. According to him, it was he who advised the complainant to get himself again examined by more sensitive test in view of technical limitations of pathology test. We have gone through the report of Dr. Chadha. There is nothing in his report that he has given any such advice. Ordinarily in every pathology report, a judicial notice of the fact can be taken that the reports are prepared by the doctor, go and pay the fee, in an envelope the report shall be handed over by some employee of the pathologist. Nothing is told verbally. If there is nothing in writing on the report, there is nothing to believe that any such advice was given. 8. Dr. Nothing is told verbally. If there is nothing in writing on the report, there is nothing to believe that any such advice was given. 8. Dr. Chadha has filed some samples of reports of several other patients issued by other pathologists. One such report of Smt. Savita has been filed. This is of some other disease and it was argued that herein it is specifically written that pathological tests have technical limitations. For any disparity repeated examinations are required. No legal liability is accepted, Clinical correlation is also requested. Similar is the position with another report of Smt. Rekha wherein also it is specifically written that pathological tests have technical limitations. For any disparity repeated examinations are required, no legal liability is accepted. Clinical is also requested. One such certificate of Dr. Chadha has also been filed but the report of the complainant is not being given on this certificate, Annexur-III. There is nothing to show that this fact was informed to the complainant that pathological tests have technical limitations and for any disparity, repeated examinations are required. Had the appellant given such an advice he could have very well told that he has informed the complainant that she should not be cent-per cent satisfied on his report. He should get himself re-examined somewhere else but no such advice appears to have been given to the complainant. This also falsifies the case of the doctor. To the contrary, the complainant has himself specifically alleged in his complaint that when he got the report that he was suffering from such a disease, he was struck that he is suffering from such a dangerous disease and his friends took him to the hospital of Dr. N.K. Pandey who referred the complainant to R.L. Memorial Pathology Centre. Thus the case of the appellant that he was advised for re-examination is totally incorrect. He has not been fair enough to contest the case. His report was found totally false. The appellant could have pressed the complainant or the Forum to get him examined by another panel of experts. At any rate, it cannot be believed that the said Australia disease was present in the body of the complainant, the other day and after 6 months it disappeared. 9. We find that doctor has given an incorrect report. The appellant could have pressed the complainant or the Forum to get him examined by another panel of experts. At any rate, it cannot be believed that the said Australia disease was present in the body of the complainant, the other day and after 6 months it disappeared. 9. We find that doctor has given an incorrect report. Some facts speak per se and the present report of the appellant speaks per se that the doctor had not taken proper care in the examination of the complainant and submission of the report and, therefore, he was deficient in the performance of his services. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellant referred the ruling reported in II (2002) CPJ 381, Madhyamgram Consumers Welfare Society v. Dr. Kalyan Kumar Chatterjee & Ors., and argued that if no treatment has been started on the basis of wrong report, no loss or injury was suffered by the complainant. There was no question of payment of any compensation. The question is not of the treatment and actual sufference but we can only think of mental status of a person who is told that you are suffering from cancer, AIDS, hepatitis and any other disease like it. He immediately starts dying and if the complainant has suffered 24 hours on this false report, that is adequate ground for award of compensation. Even in this ruling, the doctor has given report, he has charged blood examination charges, these were refunded and cost was paid to the complainant of that case. This also shows that there was factum of negligence in this ruling as well, otherwise what was the question of refund of charges and cost. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant further referred the ruling reported in III (2002) CPJ 136 (NC), Rani Devi v. Dr. S.R. Agarwal & Ors. In this ruling, it is specifically told in Para 4 that the complainant was specifically advised that her report was given on the basis of symptoms which came after observation. The deceased never offered himself for test till very late on her own volition and, therefore, the doctor was found not negligent. It was further held in this ruling that expert evidence is necessary to prove negligence. In this case, expert evidence is there. It supports the case of the complainant. The deceased never offered himself for test till very late on her own volition and, therefore, the doctor was found not negligent. It was further held in this ruling that expert evidence is necessary to prove negligence. In this case, expert evidence is there. It supports the case of the complainant. In addition, a better-qualified doctor has the other day reported in the negative to overrule the report of the appellant. Even till date, the appellant never told that his report was correct and that of R.L. Memorial Pathology Centre is incorrect. Instead of saying sorry and defending the case by making false allegations, the doctor has himself proved to be deficient in its service. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that what is the test to determine the compensation. It is true that there is no such test but compensation must commensurate to actual expenses and correlated mental pain and agony. The complainant has lived for one day with this idea that he is suffering from such a dangerous disease. The complainant has spent Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) as alleged by him. An additional compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) for one day agony will be justified and reasonable. We have got nothing on merits for which the order passed by the learned Forum may be interfered with except the amount of compensation. ORDER The appeal is hereby partly allowed and partly dismissed. The amount of compensation is reduced from Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only). Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal partly allowed.