JAGADEESAN RANGA RAJAN Vs. ANANT E. BAGUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in challenge to the Order dtd. 30/9/2015 of the State Commission in complaint no. 49 of 2013 whereby the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') and the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'doctor' and the 'hospital', respectively) alongwith Dr. Anant E. Bagul, respondent no. 1 in person and perused the record, including inter alia the impugned order dtd. 30/9/2015 and the memorandum of appeal.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant approached the doctor and the hospital for Illizarov surgery. The complainant alleged that on the advice and assurance given by the doctor and later by his assistant, namely, Dr. Prakash that the complainant would be able to walk normally, he agreed for a corrective surgery on his left leg which had been short by 1 1/2 inches due to polio in his childhood. It is further alleged that the doctor mentioned two surgeries (corrective surgery known as 'Triple Fusion' and joint surgery, Illizarov) and that they would be done on the same day and would take about 1 1/2 hours. It is further alleged that on 10/11/2005, the complainant was admitted in the hospital and some blood tests, X-rays and ECG were carried out on that day. He was operated on 12/11/2005. It is further alleged that during the period of stay in the hospital i.e. from admission to discharge, a third surgery was performed on 17/11/2005 for a maximum possible stretch and removal of ring fixator. There was infection and cultural sensitivity test was done. It is further alleged that on 7/1/2006, the complainant was administered general anesthesia for cleaning the wound and was 'Nil by mouth'. The drips were given only at night. On 8/1/2006, a dressing was done after 11.00 p.m. It is alleged that the complainant requested the doctor to remove the plaster and show him the wound. The doctor told him that it was not possible as the plaster gave support to the bone that had been broken. On 9/1/2006 neither a single doctor visited the complainant whole day nor dressing was done. It is alleged that the lack of care and callousness was intolerable and the complainant informed the hospital staff that there was no special care. The complainant complained of a foul smell from the plaster several times but no heed was paid. In view of the negligent care at the hospital, on 11/1/2006, the complainant told the doctor that he wished to leave and that if he could be discharged at the earliest. The complainant was discharged on 11/1/2006 at 2.00 p.m. The complainant has contended that from 12/1/2006 onwards he was cared by Dr. Picha. On 21/1/2006 when Dr. Picha came to dress the wound, she uncovered a cotton piece which covered the toe and she spotted a few eggs. She said that it was not a good sign and there must be 'maggots' inside. She suggested the complainant to go to the doctor and hospital but when the complainant telephoned them, neither the doctor nor his Assistant Dr. Prakash was available. Therefore, at 6.00 p.m., the complainant went to M/s Yash Hospital and was attended to and checked by Dr. Hemant B. Agarwal, who found that the situation to be very bad with the wound covering almost 2/3 of the tibia and multiple maggots on the feet. Dr. Agarwal recommended the complainant to go to Dr. Hardikar Hospital in Pune as it was an emergency. Then on 21/1/2006 the complainant rushed to Dr. Hardikar Hospital in Pune and was admitted at 11.35 p.m. The complainant was informed that gangrene was spread almost to the knee and that it was virtually impossible to go in for an amputation below the knee, for fear of further infection on the leg. The complainant alleged that something untoward had happened during the surgery at hospital which caused the artery to be blocked or compromised the flow of blood, due to the spasm caused while attempting the required/desired stretch in the complainant's leg by the doctor. It is further alleged that the infection caused due to pseudomonas bacteria was neither informed nor contained / cured at hospital, which led to loss in blood circulation, lack of sensation, gangrene and maggots settling on the dead leg. It is further alleged that the post operation treatment care was far from efficient and proper and has resulted in the loss of the complainant's limb. Further, the investigation, medical opinion following the amputation revealed the nature of 'pseudomonas bacteria'. This bacteria resides at hospital premises and is deadly, if not treated with care. It is further contended that he was never informed about the true nature and type of infection he had and was only told that it was a minor pin-tract infection, which can be cured in a couple of days. It is alleged that the complainant was not informed about the presence of pseudomonas bacteria. The complainant has contended that the doctor and the hospital were negligent and incompetent in curing the infection and Dr. Hardikar's statement in email dtd. 28/11/2006 states that the pulsoximater was not giving any signal regarding arterial flow whereas the Doppler Test confirmed absent blood flow. It is alleged that as per sound medical practice a Doppler test should have been done to ensure that there was no blockages in the veins/arteries, which was never done at the hospital and strong antibiotics were administered all along without undertaking a proper Doppler test to ensure that the medicine was actually reaching the site of wound. The complainant also contended that the consent was not an informed one.