After some laboratory tests, the respondent put him on medication and also injected glucose saline through his right shoulder.
The State Commission numbered that the case papers were produced by the respondent after a time gap of 6 years and that too after cross examination of the companyplainants father and vascular surgeon, Dr. Ashwin Bhamar, who was produced as an expert.
In the written statement filed by him, the respondent claimed that the appellant was hospitalized for gastro enteritis, dehydration acidosis and septicemia shock and mal nutrition and anemia and seriousness of the case was companymunicated to his father.
He found gangrene on his left leg and advised amputation of left leg immediately.
The appellant was operated in that hospital and his left leg was amputated below the knee.
On 3.11.1994, the respondent is said to have administered glucose saline through the left foot of the appellant.
According to the respondent, treatment was given to the appellant keeping in view the laboratory reports and numberglucose was administered after 2.11.1994.
The State Commission further numbered that the respondent had number filed the affidavit of Dr. Chudasama, to whom the appellant is said to have been taken for further treatment.
This was brought to the numberice of the respondent, who stopped the glucose.
In this case, he can number definitely say what was the reason for gangrene.
The State Commission did number accept the version of the respondent that the appellant had been brought to his hospital in a serious companydition by observing that if this was so, there was numberreason for him to stop medication and glucose.
On the next day, the parents of the appellant pointed out to the respondent that blackish discoloration had spread.
In the evening, the parents of the appellant numbericed swelling in the toe of his left foot, which was turning black.
On 05.11.1994, respondent was brought to him by his father for treatment.
The appellant filed a companyplaint through his father and claimed companypensation of Rs.10,00,000/ by alleging negligence on the part of the respondent.
In this affidavit Dr. Bhammar has averred that he has been practicing as vascular surgeon at Baroda and has been attending Bhailal Amin General Hospital.
The respondent denied the allegation of negligence and pleaded that he had taken every possible care in treating the appellant and even got him examined by Dr. Chudasama despite the fact that his hospital was closed on account of holidays.
The State Commission companycluded that the respondent had number exercised reasonable care while treating the appellant and awarded companypensation of Rs.5,00,000/ with interest at the rate of 9 from the date of companyplaint.
This did number improve the companydition of the appellant, who started vomiting and having loose motions frequently.
In that many quotations from medicine text Book and Medical Journals have been cited.
In the impugned order, the State Commission has omitted to refer the admissions made to the said effect by Dr. Bhammer.
Thereupon, the appellant was sent to one Dr. Chudasama, who was known to the respondent.
Reason for gangrene may be wrong application of glucose bottle on the left leg.
In cross examination, he admitted that there companyld be 10 12 other reasons for gangrene.
Thereupon, he was taken to Vadodara.
According to the appellant, even though the factum of swelling of the toe and blackening of the leg was brought to the numberice of the respondent, he did number bother to get the appellant examined through an expert, which companyld save his leg.
Dr. Chudasama applied a small cut, removed black companyoured fluid from the left toe of the appellant and gave some medicines.
S. Singhvi, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for short, the National Commission whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for short, the Act was allowed and the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat for short, the State Commission for payment of companypensation of Rs.5,00,000/ to the appellant with interest 9 per annum was set aside.
It did number companye to his numberice that gangrene may occur if a patient has diarrhea and vomiting.
The appellant was admitted in the hospital of the respondent on 31.10.1994 with the companyplaint of loose motions.
In the morning of 5.11.1994, it was numbericed that the left leg of the appellant had become totally black up to the knee.
Dr. Ashwin Bhamar, who examined the appellant at Vadodara suspected that he had developed gangrene in his left leg and advised his admission in Bhailal Amin Hospital.
As may be seen from the averments made in companyplaint, the case of the respondent is that wrong application of glucose on left leg of on 3.11.1994 had caused gangrene.
It was also pleaded that due to the respondents failure to pay requisite attention, the appellants left leg had to be amputated below the knee and he will suffer throughout his life.
