HIRUBHAI NAGINDAS Vs. RAKSHIT PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2015 in Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2001, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short "the State Commission"), the Complainant preferred this Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint in part directing the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant jointly and several an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation together with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the Complainant was suffering from 'Hernia' and approached the first Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ' the Doctor') at the second Opposite Party - Hospital (hereinafter referred to as 'the Hospital'). The Doctors diagnosed it as a case of 'Incision Hernia' and advised the Complainant Surgery which was conducted by the Doctor 14th December, 2008 1:30 p.m. under anaesthesia administered by one Dr. Gopal Parekh. It is averred by the Complainant that the Doctor took 7 hours to perform the Surgery and at about 10 p.m. the Complainant complained about pain in his legs, but the staff informed him that it was pain on account of anaesthesia and as there is no pain at the site of operation, there was no reason to worry. On the next day, i.e. on 15th December, 2000 the Complainant was shifted to a special room but even then the pain in his leg did not subside. It is averred that despite several complaints about the pain in his legs, the treating Doctor and the hospital staff did not care to address the issue. When the doctor advised the Complainants to stand on his legs, the pain aggravated and the Complainant felt too weak to even stand in an appropriate manner. There was unusual burning sensation in his legs. On 16th December, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. the Complainant noticed black patches and the burning sensation also aggravated.

(3.) It is believed that on 17th December, 2000, when the pain become unbearable he once again complained to the treating Doctor and to the staff and it was only on the fourth day of the surgery Dr. Vijay Thakur, the Vascular Surgeon was called for advice. On careful examination, the Vascular Surgeon advised the Complainant to be shifted to Bhailal Amin General Hospital, Vadodara for better management and hence on the same day the Complainant was shifted. At this Hospital, it was diagnosed that gangrene had developed in the Complainant's legs and both the legs were amputated below the knee on 21st December, 2000 and subsequently on 23rd December, 2000. It is averred that the civil surgeon on 16th August 2001 declared the Complainant physical handicapped 100% disabled on both the lower legs. Thereafter the Complainant got issued a legal notice on 27th September, 2001 praying for damages but there was no proper response. It is averred that no proper informed consent was taken and that the opinion of vascular surgeon was obtained belatedly on the fourth day and the Complainant's pain and the burning sensation in the legs were overlooked by the treating Doctor and the staff which led to the amputation of the Complainant's leg below the knee and for this aspect of negligence the Complainant approached the State Commission seeking an amount of Rs. 18,93,739/- with interest @ 18% per annum and other reliefs.