There are many aspects that give rise to genuine and sanguine compensation claims, chief among which are the surrounding characteristics of the occurrences of tort, the conduct of the parties involved and the kind of material and calculable damages or losses that gave rise to a claim for compensation. Courts cannot and should not provide compensation at the drop of a feather, while at the same time reject genuine claims for compensation for material damages that arouse due to negligence or malice of the defendant. The demarcating line between genuine compensation claims that need to be compensated as pitted against false claims registered and pursued under fraudulent and malicious practices, with just the overpowering motive to make quick money, may be blur, but courts need to seek out truth and justice against all odds and by making the greatest possible efforts to dispense justice. Just as it is incumbent that offenders need to be booked and punished, it is also necessary for the due process of law to believe that aggrieved parties need to be fully protected and recompensated for harm done to them. Although this is a difficult task, it needs to be achieved without demur.
Unit is one such unit wherein all claims for personal injuries are recorded, irrespective of the fact whether they have been judged or settled. Over time it is evidenced that employer liability, clinical negligence, tort cases for negligence or lowered standard of care in hospitals settings, all these have lowered over the years in the UK context. Thus, there are several grounds to believe that indeed the compensation culture does seem to have lowered in recent years and “that in recent years accident claims, far from rising have remained static and indeed last year fell by 9.5%.” 2
This could be especially attributed to the constant fear among health care practitioners, nursing faculty and other