Law:

Section:

(a) Defamation--- ----Suit for damages---Allegation of humiliation of plaintiff and her family members by defendants/(doctors of a hospital)---Assessment of damages---Scope---No hard and fast rule existed for assessment of general damages in defamation cases---Court had discretion to award compensation on the basis of evidence available on file to the affected person---Compensation should be granted against the defendant who had caused defamation, mental agony and had defamed the plaintiff in the society---Plaintiff had based her claim for recovery of damages against a number of defendants (doctors) but their role had not been bifurcated in the incident---Medical Superintendent of the Hospital was not present on the day of incident---Defendant "A" had claimed to have been assigned with the duty of acting Medical Superintendent but plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence to such effect---No specific role had been attributed to defendant "B" to "H" by the plaintiff for which they could be held responsible for disgracing and humiliating the plaintiff---Nothing was available on record with regard to illegal admission of plaintiff into the hospital---Malice was on record on behalf of defendant "A"---Defendant "A" was a doctor having no nexus with the ailment of plaintiff or her admission in the hospital or her affairs as he was not occupying the status of either Incharge of hospital or private rooms---Said defendant had no locus standi to inquire about the character or relation of plaintiff lady with any characterless persons---Defendant "A" had levelled serious allegations against the plaintiff resulting into her humiliation and bad name in the society and he used abusive language against the plaintiff---Unfortunate incident had taken place in the hospital---Defendant "A" had acted as an Investigating Officer in a criminal case without any complaint lodged by any one against the plaintiff---Repeated inspections, search of the room, wash room and even body search of the plaintiff was neither the mandate of law nor was in the job descriptions of the doctor---Defendant "A" could not be exonerated of the responsibility as he was not authorized to enquire about the…