C. Viswanath ORDER
C. Viswanath, (Presiding Member)
1. Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 14/2018 dated 03.04.2019.
2. Case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner/Complainant's wife was admitted in the Respondent Hospital on 12.12.2010 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 with following prayer:-
"Therefore it is quite justified to take legal action against the responsible surgeon of your hospital Dr. Harvansh Singh and also against the Director, Kothari Hospital Administration, Bikaner for the serious negligence in treatment given to the patient for thirteen days in your hospital."
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Against the concurrent findings of both the Fora below, the Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.
6. The Petitioner appeared in person and was heard at length. Also carefully perused the record. Both the Fora below have dismissed the Complaint. The State Commission held that the District Forum was justified in passing the impugned order and dismissed the Appeal on contest.
7. Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) 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 has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. MANU/SC/0409/2011 : (2011) 11 SCC 269 has held as under:-
"13. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."
8. Same principle has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (MANU/SC/0849/2016 : 2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"23. 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. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."
9. 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. She was admitted on 12.12.2010 with diabetic foot (right) and anaemia and discharged on 24.12.2010. She was suffering from long standing infection of the right foot due to diabetes. Since gangrene had developed on the great toe, 2nd & 3rd toes, the same were removed. On discharge she was advised medication after ensuring that her parameters were within limits and blood sugar was under control. Later she was admitted to S.K. Soni Hospital on 25.12.2010 and discharged on 02.01.2011. 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.
10. In view of the expert opinion of the Medical Board, I see 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 the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.