IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Diabetic patient – The diabetic patients are prone to develop diabetic foot because of compromised blood supply to the periphery and also infections because of immune compromised state.
(2) Surmises - The doctors will not be able to serve the patients with their dedication if the halter is on their neck, the instant case was filed based on just surmises and presumptions with lack of medical acumen.

ORDER

Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—Patients’ expectations are defined as a set of beliefs an individual holds in regard to the treatment and its outcomes with an anticipation that a given event is likely to happen as a consequence of an intervention. Those in health care continue to increase and need to be managed adequately in order to improve outcomes and decrease liability. The days of absolute trust and blind obedience to doctors are over.

The Appellant-Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS), Lucknow through his Director Mr. Uttam Singh has filed the instant Appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”), against the Judgment dated 30.12.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in C.C. no. 07/2015, whereby the State Commission allowed the complaint.

2. The facts in brief are that the Complainant G. K. Raghuvanshi (for short ‘the Patient’) since June 2007 was suffering from multiple health problems like diabetes, cardiac and kidney. Till December 2012 end on several occasions he was hospitalized and underwent few procedures like angioplasty, CABG ,hemodialysis. On 25.07.2011 he underwent renal transplant in SGPGIMS, the kidney was donated by his wife and he was put on immunosuppressive drugs. He alleged that there was urinary leakage for three months after renal transplant. On 31.10.2011 he got himself discharged from the OP hospital and got admitted in Fortis Hospital on 02.11.2011. As Fortis he underwent ‘Graft kidney with closure of celestial fistula and removal of PCN tube under GA’ and the urinary leak was stopped, he was discharged on 09.11.2011. The patient suffered ‘gangrene’ of toes in Rt. Foot and on 26.12.2012 consulted Dr. Amit Gupta, Professor of Nephrology at SGPGIMS. He further referred the patient to Department of ‘Endocrine Surgery’ OPD for advice. Again he was referred back to the ‘Nephrology’ Department with advice to clean daily the gangrenous wounds of the Rt. foot and use Betadine ointment. It was alleged that, at the initial stage of gangrene both the departments did not take proper care . On 20.02.2013 he approached department of ‘CVTS’ but the doctors there also took it casually and prescribed medicines only. Also he took hyperbaric oxygen session at Fortis but gangrene was not healed due to alleged delay in treatment of SGPGI. Consequently, on 20.03.2013 amputation of toes was done and discharged on 30.03.2013. Thereafter, on 03.04.2013 he was admitted to OP hospital in the Endocrine Surgery department. His lumbar sympathectomy was done on 12.04.2013 for the relief from pain. It was alleged that Endocrine department did not adopt ‘Balloon Dilation Therapy’ available in the institute. The patient was discharged on 17.04.2013.

3. The allegation of the Complainant was that not providing Endovascular Intervention Therapy, his Right 3rd and 4th toe was amputated on 31.05.2013. On 04.12.2013 the Complainant requested Chief Secretary who was Chairman of OP to make available ‘Balloon Dilation Therapy’. Thereafter he was admitted on 16.12.2013 for ‘Endovascular Intervention Therapy’ but doctors were unable to save his left great toe. He further alleged that his wife donated kidney for him , became a patient of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) and type-2 DM. Due to unbearable hardship, she got her treatment at Shekhar Hospital, Lucknow.

4. Being aggrieved due to alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service from the SGPGIMA, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 07/2015 before State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, U.P. (for short, the ‘State Commission’) to claim compensation of Rs.99,98,800/-.

5. The Opposite Party did not file written statement, therefore proceeded against ex-parte.

6. The State Commission decided the Complaint after obtaining an expert report from King George Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow. It relied upon the decision