SURAJ BAI Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act") is to the order dated 29.08.2008 in Appeal No. 684 and 1812 of 2015 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeals preferred by the Insurance Company and Dr. Mohd. Iqbal, consequently dismissing the Complaint.

(2.) The facts material to the case are that the Complainant slipped on the floor of her house and was immediately taken to Dr. Mohd. Iqbal, the first Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as "the treating Doctor") and was admitted at Bharat Vikas Parishad Hospital, Kota. It was pleaded that there was only one simple fracture in her left leg and there were no other external injuries, but she was advised an operation for the broken leg and the same was conducted on 13.11.2000 by the treating Doctor. Thereafter, there was severe pain in the leg and it was averred that she completely lost sensation and the colour of the leg became bluish. The same was informed to the treating Doctor, but he had assured the Complainant that there was nothing to worry about. On 14.11.2000, the Complainant was examined by another Dr. Anwar, who informed her that Gangrene had developed in her left leg. It was averred that on 15.11.2000, the Complainant was not examined at all despite the fact that infection was spreading rapidly, the situation remained the same till 17.11.2000. It was pleaded that on 17.11.2000 the Complainant's family member requested the treating Doctor to once again examine the Complainant and at about 4.00 p.m. in the evening, the Complainant was advised to get a Colour Doppler test done at Sudha Hospital. After the test the Complainant was taken back to Bharat Vikas Parishad Hospital. When the report was requested for, the Complainant and her attendants were informed that the report would be handed over only to the treating Doctor. Thereafter, the Complainant was examined by Dr. Jaswant singh, who advised the Patient to be taken immediately to Vascular Surgeon in Sawai Man Singh Hospital as Gangrene has developed. Thereafter at about 9.30 p.m. on 17.11.2000, the Complainant was discharged from the Hospital and taken to Jaipur, where her leg was amputated upto the knee and she was informed that this amputation was only on account of the delay in diagnosing the spread of Gangrene.

(3.) It was further pleaded that the Complainant's leg has further became black and she was again admitted to MBS Hospital on 13.12.2000 and after all investigations were completed, on 18.12.2000 the Complainant's leg was further amputated by five inches and the rod and the nails inserted by the treating Doctor were removed. It was pleaded that the decision of interlocking of nails taken by the treating Doctor without having necessary equipment namely, 'Image Intense Faber' caused the pressure leading to stoppage of blood circulation in leg. Even, during the post-operative period the treating Doctor did not take any steps on 14.11.2000, 15.11.2000, 16.11.2000 or on 17.11.2000 to conduct a test despite the fact that the colour of the leg had turned bluish. It was averred that it was only on account of the negligence of the treating Doctor that she lost her left leg and has became dependant on others for performing any physical activities. Hence the Complaint seeking an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from the Opposite Parties along with interest.