JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, `the National Commission') whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, `the Act') was allowed and the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (for short, `the State Commission') for payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the appellant with interest @ 9% per annum was set aside.

3. The appellant was admitted in the hospital of the respondent on 31.10.1994 with the complaint of loose motions. After some laboratory tests, the respondent put him on medication and also injected glucose saline through his right shoulder. This did not improve the condition of the appellant, who started vomiting and having loose motions frequently. On 3.11.1994, the respondent is said to have administered glucose saline through the left foot of the appellant. In the evening, the parents of the appellant noticed swelling in the toe of his left foot, which was turning black. This was brought to the notice of the respondent, who stopped the glucose. On the next day, the parents of the appellant pointed out to the respondent that blackish discoloration had spread. Thereupon, the appellant was sent to one Dr. Chudasama, who was known to the respondent. Dr. Chudasama applied a small cut, removed black coloured fluid from the left toe of the appellant and gave some medicines. In the morning of 5.11.1994, it was noticed that the left leg of the appellant had become totally black up to the knee. Thereupon, he was taken to Vadodara. Dr. Ashwin Bhamar, who examined the appellant at Vadodara suspected that he had developed gangrene in his left leg and advised his admission in Bhailal Amin Hospital. The appellant was operated in that hospital and his left leg was amputated below the knee.

4. The appellant filed a complaint through his father and claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- by alleging negligence on the part of the respondent. According to the appellant, even though the factum of swelling of the toe and blackening of the leg was brought to the notice of the respondent, he did not bother to get the appellant examined through an expert, which could save his leg. It was also pleaded that due to the respondent's failure to pay requisite attention, the appellant's left leg had to be amputated below the knee and he will suffer throughout his life

5. In the written statement filed by him, the respondent claimed that the appellant was hospitalized for gastro-enteritis, dehydration acidosis and septicemia shock and mal-nutrition and anemia and seriousness of the case was communicated to his father. According to the respondent, treatment was given to the appellant keeping in view the laboratory reports and no glucose was administered after 2.11.1994. The respondent denied the allegation of negligence and pleaded that he had taken every possible care in treating the appellant and even got him examined by Dr. Chudasama despite the fact that his hospital was closed on account of holidays.

6. The State Commission did not accept the version of the respondent that the appellant had been brought to his hospital in a serious condition by observing that if this was so, there was no reason for him to stop medication and glucose. The State Commission noted that the case papers were produced by the respondent after a time gap of 6 years and that too after cross-examination of the complainant's father and vascular surgeon, Dr. Ashwin Bhamar, who was produced as an expert. The State Commission further noted that the respondent had not filed the affidavit of Dr. Chudasama, to whom the appellant is said to have been taken for further treatment. The State Commission concluded that the respondent had not exercised reasonable care while treating the appellant and awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate