National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Rameshwar Lal Sharma Vs. Director Kothari Hospital and Ors.

MANU/CF/0226/2020

28.02.2020

Consumer

Court can intervene only when Complainant succeeds in showing that Fora below has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction

Case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner/Complainant's wife was admitted in the Respondent Hospital on 12th December, 2010 as her great toe and 2nd & 3rd toes of the right foot were infected with gangrene. The Complainant states that, the portion between the knee and heel of her right foot was in normal condition and not infected with gangrene. The great toe and the 2nd & 3rd toe were amputated and she was administered antibiotics. Later, as gangrene spread above the heel, her right foot was amputated. Alleging medical negligence, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

The Respondents/Opposite Parties contested the case that, there was no medical negligence in the case. The patient's great tow and 2nd and 3rd toes were infected with gangrene and were, therefore, amputated. For the portion above the heel antibiotic treatment was started, apart from other procedures.

The District Forum dismissed the Complaint on the basis of Medical Board report. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, an Appeal was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the District Forum had not erred in relying upon the Medical Board report. The Appellant/Complainant could not submit any proof to the contrary. Therefore, the Appeal was dismissed. Against the concurrent findings of both the Fora below, the Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below have wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. held that, The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity.

The District Forum rightly relied upon the report of the Medical Board duly consisting of a Surgeon, Medical jurist and Physician. The Medical Board examined the treatment documents of the Complainant's wife. The Medical Board held that there was no negligence in the conduct of surgery for removal of the toes, which were infected with gangrene and incision and drainage of the soft tissue infection above the heel was also justified as per surgical norms. Initially amputation above the heel was not justified as it was not gangrenous. The Respondent took the first line of treatment with incision and drainage of the soft tissue and administrating antibiotics. She was given proper treatment and there was no negligence on the part of the treating Surgeon. Every possible measure was taken to save her limb from higher level amputation, for which deficiency of service/negligence cannot be attributed to the Respondents.

There is no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference under Section 21 (b) of Act, 1986. Revision Petition is therefore dismissed.

Relevant

Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. MANU/SC/0849/2016

Tags : Negligence Concurrent findings Jurisdiction

Share :