MINOR MARGHESH K PARIKH Vs. MAYUR H MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) 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 compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the appellant with interest @ 9% per annum was set aside.

(3.) The appellant was admitted in the hospital of the respondent on 31.10.1994 with the complaint of loose motions. After some laboratory tests, the respondent put him on medication and also injected glucose saline through his right shoulder. This did not improve the condition of the appellant, who started vomiting and having loose motions frequently. On 3.11.1994, the respondent is said to have administered glucose saline through the left foot of the appellant. In the evening, the parents of the appellant noticed swelling in the toe of his left foot, which was turning black. This was brought to the notice of the respondent, who stopped the glucose. On the next day, the parents of the appellant pointed out to the respondent that blackish discoloration had spread. Thereupon, the appellant was sent to one Dr. Chudasama, who was known to the respondent. Dr. Chudasama applied a small cut, removed black coloured fluid from the left toe of the appellant and gave some medicines. In the morning of 5.11.1994, it was noticed that the left leg of the appellant had become totally black up to the knee. Thereupon, he was taken to Vadodara. 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. The appellant was operated in that hospital and his left leg was amputated below the knee.