JUDGMENT : Sunil Hali (Retd.), President The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order of District Forum, Jammu. Before getting into the controversy involved, it is necessary to indicate the facts involved in this case. 2. The complainant/Appellant's wife Late Mrs. Pankaj was suffering from some "Life Consuming Disease" as a consequence of which she was advised to undergo certain periodical pathological tests. Various blood tests were conducted and amongst them, two tests which were necessary to be conducted were "Vitamin B-12 "CYANDCOBAAMIN" and "Folate (Folic Acid) Serum". The said tests were conducted in the diagnostic centre of Dr. Lalpath Labs in Jammu. On 04.11.2012 for conducting aforesaid tests, he was given estimate of Rs. 440/- for Serum Folate (Folic Acid) and Rs. 440/- for Vitamin B12. On 05.11.2012, when he handed over the blood sample to the respondents for the said tests, he was charged Rs. 1700/- for the same. The complainant/appellant raised the issue with respondents who informed him that revised policy rates have been applied as per which the rates have been enhanced. Not feeling satisfied with the reply of the respondents, he issued a legal notice to respondents and subsequently filed the present complaint against them. In the complaint, he has asked for Rs. 50,000/- on account mental harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation charges. The respondents in their objections before the Forum below had taken a stand that the complaint was misconceived as the rates have been revised as per policy of the company. It is stated in para 4 of the preliminary objections that the present complaint has been filed only to mint money from respondents. 3. The District Forum vide judgment dated 06.02.2017 has allowed the complaint, directing respondents to refund excess amount plus Rs. 15,000/-as compensation for mental agony. It is admitted that this amount has been paid by the other side to the complainant. The appellant has come in the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation which was on account of mental agony and litigation charges. The sole contention is that respondents have indulged in unfair trade practice by charging higher rates. He has further contended that being a practicing lawyer, his reputation was maligned because of allegations leveled against him by respondents that the complaint has been filed for minting money only therefore he contends that his claim for enhancement of higher compensation is justified. 4. He has further contended that being a practicing lawyer, his reputation was maligned because of allegations leveled against him by respondents that the complaint has been filed for minting money only therefore he contends that his claim for enhancement of higher compensation is justified. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the record available on file. 5. The amount charged for conducting two blood tests on 04.11.2012 was Rs. 880/-while the same tests were charged Rs. 17,00/- on the very next day i.e. 05.11.2012. Even though the other side made an effort to defend this by pleading that there was a policy decision taken by the company for revision of the rates. No policy was brought to the notice of the District Forum nor has been done here today. In view of non-submission of policy decision, the District Forum found respondents-OPs therein liable of indulging in unfair trade practice by charging enhanced rates. Even, while contesting this matter, respondents have leveled allegations against the complainant/ appellant that the complaint has been filed by him only to mint money from respondents. In view of the findings recorded by the District Forum, finding OP guilty of unfair trade practice, such allegations have definitely maligned the reputation of appellant. 6. Causing mental agony does not have a standard level of compensation. It depends upon the process which one undergoes in pursuing his case before the opposite party as well as before the concerned Forum. The amount of stress and humiliation a person feels in pursuing the complaint or the legal process by itself becomes a determinative factor for determining the loss. There is no statutory back up for such evaluation. 7. In the present case, it is clearly visible that complainant/appellant who is a practicing lawyer has suffered agony of pursuing his matter for three years before District Forum for a case which was just and fair. His wife was suffering from "Life Consuming Disease" who had undergone these blood tests. Unfortunately, she has passed away. Not only that, he himself being a practicing lawyer has faced this difficulty of processing the case where admittedly respondents were on the wrong side of law and despite requests made by him also for refund of the additionally charged amount but the respondents did not bother to listen to his requests. Unfortunately, she has passed away. Not only that, he himself being a practicing lawyer has faced this difficulty of processing the case where admittedly respondents were on the wrong side of law and despite requests made by him also for refund of the additionally charged amount but the respondents did not bother to listen to his requests. Adding insult to the injury, they leveled an allegation that the complaint was filed by him only to mint money from respondents. 8. The unilateral revision of the rates in conducting various medical tests in pathological laboratories needs to be guided by some regulations supported by the statute. The laboratories cannot function in a manner which has direct bearing on public at large. Unilateral revision of the rates for conducting various tests has to be specifically specified and any revision has to be backed up by any regulations issued in terms of any statute. They cannot use the power unilaterally to revise the rates unless it is backed up by some regulations and statute of law. Rate for conducting the blood tests in question actually were Rs. 440/- each i.e. Rs. 880/- but only after one day, the rate was unilaterally raised to Rs. 17,00/-. 9. Despite been directed by the Commission to produce the policy under which such revision took place, respondents failed to do so, which clearly implies that such type of practice clearly come within a purview of unfair trade practice. Therefore any revision of rates is to be notified along with the regulation and statute of law under which such a revision took place. Unilaterally rates cannot be revised. In this behalf, we direct that in case there are no statutory regulations then the Govt, need to step in and frame such regulations so that public in general and patients in particular may not bear the brunt of paying exorbitant rates. In case the rules are in force, they have to be implemented strictly and every pathological laboratory is directed to notify the list on the notice board on regular occasions. 10. Coming to the merits of the case, it clearly emerges that: (a). That unfair trade practice was practiced by the respondents by charging enhanced rates on their own. (b). That the complainant/appellant was admittedly harassed mentally for 3 years. (c). That his reputation was maligned by stating that he has filed the complaint only to mint money. 10. Coming to the merits of the case, it clearly emerges that: (a). That unfair trade practice was practiced by the respondents by charging enhanced rates on their own. (b). That the complainant/appellant was admittedly harassed mentally for 3 years. (c). That his reputation was maligned by stating that he has filed the complaint only to mint money. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances thrashed out hereinabove together with reputation and suffering of the appellant, we enhance the compensation of Rs. 15,000/-awarded by the Forum below to Rs. 35,000/-. The appeal is as such allowed and respondents are directed to deposit additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- in this Commission within a period of four weeks from now. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Record of the Forum along with copy of this order be sent back. Office to follow up.