ORDER

1.      The Appellant filed the instant Appeal under section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (in short “the Act”), against the Order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, U.P. (the “State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 123 of 2017, wherein the State Commission dismissed the Complaint filed by the Complainants (Appellants herein) against the Opposite Parties (Respondents herein).

2.      There was 8 days delay in filing the Appeal. For the reasons stated in the application and interest of justice, the same is condoned.

3.      For Convenience, the parties in this matter are being referred to as per position held in Consumer Complaint in the State Commission.

4.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainants, are that on 30.08.2016, Complainant No.1 was admitted to the OPs hospital and gave birth to a male child, named Mohd. Aahil, through a full-term normal vaginal delivery (FTNVD) at 5:15 PM. The OP’s hospital staff, without consulting a pediatrician or conducting a proper medical examination, falsely informed them that the newborn required immediate treatment in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) to survive, despite the baby appearing normal and healthy.

5.      The OP’s hospital staff admitted the baby to the NICU against the parents' consent and began treatment without adequate equipment or a skilled pediatrician. Repeated requests by the parents for second opinion were refused by the hospital staff. No pediatrician or neonatologist was available at the hospital. During the baby's stay in the NICU, the staff struggled to find a vein for the I.V. drip, resulting in multiple punctures on the baby's hand. The baby's hand was tightly strapped to maintain the I.V. drip, causing the baby distress, which the staff ignored. Moreover, the hospital staff administered doses of Taxim 250 mg and Amikacin 50 mg, without accurately assessing the baby's weight and age, a clear violation of medical protocol. Despite parents persistent concerns, their access to the baby was severely restricted, and they were denied opportunity to feed him for over four days. Upon noticing black discoloration and swelling in baby's right hand on 04.09.2016, the parents were assured by the hospital staff that it would resolve on its own and discharged the baby on the same day. On 05.09.2016, they observed black discoloration on the baby's right hand worsening. They returned to OP’s hospital and the staff recommended the same treatment as before, along with advising a complete blood test and the application of TBACT/ MEGHAHEL cream on the affected hand. Despite following these instructions diligently, no improvement noted. Again on 06.09.2016, Complainants consulted the hospital staff. The hospital staff issued a letter dated 06.09.2016, advising them to seek expert opinion and management from Dr. Prof. SD Pandey, a Plastic Surgeon. At this point, it became evident to them that the OP hospital was attempting to shift the responsibility and cost of treatment to another party to absolve themselves of any negligence regarding the baby's condition. However, as the condition worsened, they consulted Dr Manoj Kumar Singh at “Yamini Balya Chikitsalaya on 07.09.2016. He diagnosed ‘Gangrene’ in the baby's hand and referred them to another super specialty hospital for further treatment. Despite subsequent efforts at renowned hospitals, including Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital at Mumbai and Narayana Handayalaya at Bangalore, the baby's hand could not be salvaged, necessitating amputation. Subsequently, on 31.10.2016 an additional operation for ‘groin flap division and saturation’ was performed in Sparsh Hospital, Bangalore. They alleged that the OPs hospital staff's negligence, incompetence, and greed led to the iatrogenic complication resulting in the loss of the baby's hand. The OPs lacked qualifications to treat newborns in NICU, negligently administered incorrect doses of medication and failed to