The court established that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requires a summary approach and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure should not be strictly applied in consumer protection proceedings.

ORDER

R.C. Jain, Presiding Member - Aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint No. 119/SC /96 by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, the State Commission ) vide its order dated 3.10.2005, the original complainant has filed the present appeal.

2. The facts and circumstances leading to the complaint and then the present appeal are that the complainant was admitted on 26.7.1996 to Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute, Lucknow (to be referred to as the hospital ) for the treatment of acute duodenal papillary ulcer. The ultrasonographic examination of the complainant was conducted and thereafter he was advised to undergo (contrast) CT scan on 1.8.1996. As a prelude to the said test, he was to be intravenously injected 10 ampoules of ionic contrast medium (Urograffin 76%). When, in order to inject the said dye, the nurse inserted a cannula in the left wrist of the complainant, he felt unbearable pain and cried out loudly. The nurse did not take any notice of the same; rather, she asked the complainant to remain silent. According to the complainant, when the nurse injected the first ampoule of the contrast dye through the cannula, the complainant again felt severe pain. Even the dye could not be fully injected and almost 50% of the dye came out of the needle. At the time of injecting the second ampoule, again the complainant felt severe pain and nearly 60% of the dye came out. The same thing happened when the third ampoule was injected. The complainant did not allow the fourth ampoule to be injected and stood up in protest. On hearing the cries of the complainant, a doctor came and, after inspecting the needle which had been inserted in the left wrist of the complainant, he took out the needle from the wrist and inserted the cannula in the right hand dorsum of the patient through which the remaining six ampoules were injected. The complainant continued to feel severe pain and swelling in his left wrist which remained uncured. Though, as per the record of the hospital, he was purportedly discharged on 5.8.1996, in fact, he was discharged on 10.8.1996 only, with the assurance that his left hand would be all right after 15-20 days. Since the condition of the left hand and forearm of the complainant actually deteriorated during the subsequent period, he again visited the respondent hospital on 28.8.1996 with the complaint of more severe pain and swelling in the forearm. Dr. V.A. Saraswat, the gastro-intestinal (GI) specialist who was attending on him, advised that he would be all right in a few days. Again on 4.9.1996, the complainant visited the hospital with the complaint of unabated and unbearable pain and only then Dr. Saraswat referred him to one Dr. Adarsh Kumar of K.K. Hospital, Lucknow for his opinion, treatment and management. He contacted the said doctor and thereafter some other doctors. He even got conducted electro nerve conduction test at the Electro Neuro Diagnostic Centre, New Delhi but ultimately there was no relief and the complainant's left forearm became totally disabled.

3. According to the complainant, the insertion of the cannula in his left wrist was done in a grossly improper, negligent and careless manner by inexperienced para-medical staff, as a result of which the contrast dye could not be injected into the vein and the drug accumulated in a serious cavity which ultimately led to a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome (L) hand, first resulting in acute pain and swelling of the left wrist and then in its permanent disability. The complainant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 18 lakh towards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and injury to him.

4. The complaint was resisted by the respondent-hospital though it did not dispute the factum of admission of the complainant to the hospital as also the treatment and diagnostic investigation given to him, including CT scan test on 1.8.1996. It was sought to be explained that the cannula was inserted in the left wrist of the complain