IMPORTANT POINT
Doctor cannot act contrary to Medical Literature.

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Presiding Member—Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), is to order dated 22.12.2009 in Appeal No. 1472 of 2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”). By the impugned order, the State Commission allowed the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and set aside the order of the District Forum, thereby, dismissing the Complaint.

2. The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainant approached the first Opposite Party Doctor on 29.6.2001 with complaint of itching problem in her left leg. It is averred that the Doctor examined her and prescribed four medicines and asked her to purchase them from the Medical Store in his clinic. It was also advised that the Complainant should come for review after getting her blood test report. The Applicant got her blood test on 1.7.2001, which showed the blood sugar level as normal. It is stated that after taking the medicines for four days, as prescribed, her condition became worse and the small boils of her left toe got enlarged and spread up to the knee with severe burning sensation and full of water. On 2.7.2001, on the 4th day, the Complainant again approached the first Opposite Party Doctor who examined her and added more medicines and told her to repeat the four previous medicines also. These were also purchased from his Medical Store. The Complainant pleaded that after using all the six medicines, her condition became more deteriorated and she was unable to bear the pain and she approached the Doctor again on 11.7.2001. Four more medicines were added and the Complainant was advised to take all the 10 medicines.

3. It is averred that after 24 hours, the condition of the Complainant became so deteriorated that water was coming from the boils of her leg and there was burning sensation and she had become unconscious. On 12.7.2001, three more medicines were added apart from repeating the earlier medicines and in all, it is stated that 13 medicines were used. The Complainant had become unconscious, with unbearable pain and the leg felt like it was a case of burns. Thereafter, the Complainant took her to the Skin Specialist, Dr. A.K. Bajaj on 19.7.2001, who prescribed four medicines and injections and reviewed her again on 23.7.2001, by which time, the condition remained the same. Four medicines were prescribed with powerful injection SUPASEF of 1.5 gm. in the morning and evening twice for four more days. On 27.7.2001, the medicines were continued upto 30.7.2001. Dr. Bajaj had prescribed one more Injection alongwith the medicines and reviewed her on 2.8.2001, on which date, the Complainant’s blisters had completely dried, but the skin had darkened. Water was still coming out from the site of infection. The patient was advised to undergo dressings and was referred to Dr. D.R. Singh. On 2.8.2001, the Complainant immediately went to Raj Nursing Home and approached Dr. D.R. Singh, who found that all the tissues were dead and stated that there was very little chance of recovery and that the leg had to be amputated. Subsequently he took the advice of Dr. Tripathi on 4.8.2001, who advised the patient that her leg can be saved and that he would be discharged within 48 hours after being admitted. On 6.8.2001, Dr. Ashok Tripathi performed the operation of the leg and was discharged on 8.8.2001. Dr. Ashok Tripathi applied medicines and performed dressing on his own; transfused one bottle of blood on 10.10.2001 and continued dressing and application of medicines till 4.8.2002. Even thereafter, it is averred by the Complainant that she continuously visited the said doctor and was taking his advice. Though the condition of the leg improved, there is permanent disability, the skin turned black and there is constant itching and pain. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was spent on medicines and the Complainant submits that