Both the above appeals are being decided together in asmuch as they arise out of same judgement and order rendered by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes redressal Commission, (for short, he State Commission in complaint case no. 09/2004. The State Commission held that Bokaro General Hospital (BGH) and Dr. S.N. Singh, who were original opposite parties, were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10 lakh to complainant, Devendra Singh, alongwith cost of Rs.5,000/- on account of medical negligence committed by them. Feeling aggrieved, the Hospital has preferred FA No. 301 / 2005 whereas Dr. S.N. Singh has preferred FA No. 237 / 2005. 2. Originally, respondent no. 1 (complainant), Devendra Singh had filed the complaint against, in all, seven opposite parties. The averments made in the complaint were that all of them were jointly and severally responsible for erroneous medical treatment, which ultimately resulted into amputation of his left leg. The names of original OP Nos. 3 to 7 were deleted during course of the proceedings. The complaint of Devendra Singh, was, therefore, restricted only as against the present appellants. 3. Shorn of unessentials, the case of the respondent no. 1, Devendra Singh is that he met with an accident due to fall from his scooter while crossing a road. He was rushed to the Bokaro General Hospital (BGH) immediately after the incident on 26.11.1999. At the BGH, Dr. S.N. Singh attended him. His left leg was put under plaster because the x-ray examination revealed fracture of both the bones of left leg. In the night, after he was discharged from the hospital, he suffered pains. On consultation, Dr. S.N. Singh, orally advised him to seek opinion from expert and referred him to Dr. Kailash Prasad of Sharda Clinic at Dhanbad, i.e., original opposite party no. 3. On next date, i.e., 27.11.1999, he approached Dr. Kailash Prasad at Sharda Clinic at Dhanbad. The plaster was removed and thereafter the left leg was re-plastered. He was advised to go to higher centre for further treatment because it was suspected that there was onset of gangrene in the left leg. He went thereafter to Lansdowne Nursing Home at Kolkata and from there to Woodlands Hospital, Kolkata. His left leg was amputated on 11.12.1999 below the knee and again remaining part above the knee was amputated on 13.12.1999. He incurred heavy expenditure and suffered agony and pains. According to him, he became crippled due to medical negligence of the appellants and hence sought compensation of Rs.28,81,531.40ps. from them. 4. The appellants denied truth into the material averments made in the complaint in the context of their medical negligence. They alleged that on 26.11.1999 at about 11.00 AM, a large group of persons came to the hospital (BGH) with injured, Devendra Singh (complainant). The members of the said group inquired whether Dr. K.D. Roy was available. However, since Dr. Roy was unavailable, they were advised to go to casualty ward. Considering the emergency and the fact that Devendra Singh (complainant) needed immediate treatment, appellant Dr. Singh, directed x-ray examination of the swollen left leg. He noticed that there was fracture of both the bones of the left legs. The left leg was required to be immediately immobilised by applying plaster of Paris. That was done in furtherance of the conservative treatment, which was found suitable at that moment. Thereafter Devendra Singh (complainant) was instructed to get elevated the left lower limb over and above the level of two pillows, to exercise and activate the toe of the left leg and to ultimately report if the pain had increased or the toe movement had been impaired. Though, he was treated as OPD patient and got self discharged in the evening yet the respondent no. 1 (complainant) did not come to the BGH thereafter. He never reported of any pains or complaint of difficulty in the movements of the toe. It was denied, therefore, that there was medical negligence on part of the appellants while treating him. They also denied that the left leg of the respondent no. 1 (complainant) had to be amputated due to careless plastering at the initial stage. Consequently, they sought dismissal of the complaint. 5. The parties adduced certain evidence before the State Commission, including affidavits and medical record. The State Commission held that the onset of gangrene in the left leg of Devendra Singh (complainant) was result of excessively tight plastering of the leg. The State Commission held the appellants responsible for negligently plastering the left leg which resulted into undue swelling within the close fitting of the plaster, which ultimately impeded the arterial flow to the distal part of the limb. The State Commission, therefore, held that due to medical negligence committed by the appellants, they were jointly and severally liable to indemnify Devendra Singh (complainant) for the loss of left lower extremity, enjoyment of life, sufferance and expenditure incurred by him for further medical treatment. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the medical literature as well as the relevant medical record. The fact that Devendra Singh (complainant) met with an accident on 26.11.1999 is not in dispute. At the relevant time, a pedestrian collided with his scooter on the road. He could not control the vehicle and was thrown off the scooter. The scooter fell on his left leg and as such he was injured. It is an admitted fact that some passers by assisted him and took him to the BGH. It is also an admitted fact that Dr. S.N. Singh prescribed x-ray examination of the injured left leg and thereafter put the same under plaster. 7. Going by the averments in the complaint, it may be gathered that Devendra Singh (complainant) gave no details about pains suffered by him in the same night. The complaint further shows that he made grievance against Dr. Kailash Prasad of Sharda Clinic at Dhanbad as well as the other medical centres where he was later on treated. The fact remains, however, that he had not gone back to the BGH after the relevant evening. 8. The core issue involved in the appeal is:- hether the onset of the gangrene in the left leg of Devendra Singh (complainant) was the result of ross-negligencecommitted by the appellants and as such he lost the left lower extremity? 9. The out patient record of the BGH shows that both the bones of the left leg of Devendra Singh (complainant) were found fractured and, therefore, Dr. S.N. Singh carried out procedure of closed reduction and had put the left leg above the knee under plaster of paris (POP). Devendra Singh was then advised to take prescribed medicines. The medical record of Sharda Clinic, Dhanbad shows that he was examined on 27.11.1999 at about 1:30 PM. It was found that there was swelling over his left leg. He gave history of absence of sensation and movement in the toe since 1:00PM on 26.11.1999. This complaint made to the attending Doctor at Sharda Clinic, Dhanbad, namely, Dr. Prasad appears to be untrue because the treatment given to him at BGH, Bokaro was completed in the evening of 26.11.1999. Secondly, affidavit of Devendra Singh purports to show that in the night time his left leg began to become umband, therefore, his neighbour Bhagwan Singh had gone to BGH to contact Dr. Singh, who was not found there. It appears that when he was advised to report after the commencement of any pains in the left leg, it was improper for him to go to Dhanbad against the medical advise of the appellants. There is no scintilla of evidence to show that in that night between 26th and 27th Nov. 1999. Devendra Singh (complainant) was advised by Dr. S.N. Singh to go to Dr. Prasad of Sharda Clinic at Dhanbad. There is also no reliable material to show that he had duly followed the other medical advise of doing toe exercise and keeping the left leg elevated. 10. There is no reason to discard the observation of Dr. Kailash Prasad, who had noticed that there was absence of sensation in the toe. He also noticed that left leg was swollen and peripheral circulation was very sluggish. He further noticed, after removal of the plaster of Paris, that there were reddish patches on whole leg, dorsal and pedis and posterior tibial artery was not palpable. He further found that there was blister formation. According to his diagnosis, the fracture of upper tibia and fibula of the left leg was accompanied by impeding gangrene. It appears that till 29.11.1999, Devendra Singh (complainant) remained in Sharda Clinic at Dhanbad. The orthopaedician and one physician referred him to higher centre for further management. 11. The gangrene may be result of excessively tight cast of plaster of paris (POP). The care required to be taken is to keep a careful watch for possible impairment of the circulation. The State Commission referred to the medical literature as follows:- he Apley system of Orthopaedics and Fractures has given the cause of gangrene and its treatment in the following areas: 1) laster of Paris is still widely used as a splint especially for distal limb fracture and for most children fractures. It is safe enough so long as one is alert to the danger of a tight cast and provided pressure sores are prevented. 2) Tight Cast The cast may be put on too tightly, or it may become tight if the limb swells. The patient complains of diffuse pain; only later-sometimes much later do the signs of vascular compression appear. The limb should be elevated, but if the pain persists the only safe course is to split the cast and ease it open (1) throughout its length and (2) through all the padding down to skin. Whenever swelling is anticipated the cast should be applied over thick padding and the plaster should be split before it sets so as to provide a firm but no absolutely rigid splint. Further Dr. Bailey & Loves in his book short practice of surgery has opined as follows: reatment directed to the cause: e.g. closed or open reduction of a fracture together with direct arterial surgery for the damaged vessel, will usually prevent the onset of gangrene. The limb must be kept cool, so as to reduce metabolism to the minimum. When gangrene is slow to develop, a line of demarcation will indicate the level of vitality. If moist gangrene occurs and spreads rapidly, amputation may be needed to save the patient life. Further, John Crawford Adams, in his book first line of treatment has observed as follows: recautions in the use of plaster and splints. When a plaster has been applied over a fresh fracture or after operation upon a limb, careful watch must always be kept for possible impairment of the circulation; Undue swelling within a closely fitting plaster of splint may be sufficient to impede the arterial flow to the distal part of the limb. The period of greatest danger is between 12 and 36 hours after the injury or operation. Severe pain within the plaster and marked swelling of the digits, are warning signs that should. 12. It is to be noticed that the swelling on the fractured left leg of the complainant was already present. The OPD record of the BGH shows that the plaster of Paris (POP) was applied below the knee. The material on record shows that the complainant was advised to be admitted in the Bill but because the people attending him refused to admit him, he was allowed to go home. 13. Perusal of the medical literature produced by the appellants, goes to show that the swelling over the fractured leg could appear after the POP. It is true that the POP must not be too tight which will result into swelling of the limb. The medical literature shows that the limb should be elevated and in case the pain continues the only safeguard is to split the cast and make it open throughout its length and through pending down to the skin. The complainant did not adduce any reliable material to show that he had kept the left leg elevated after the POP. What appears from the paragraph 5 of the affidavit of the complainant is that in the night time, the left leg began to become umb If that was so, he could have been immediately rushed to BGH in the same night. The entry in the medical record of the Sharda Clinic, Dhanbad that history was given that there was no sensation in the toe since 1:00PM on 26.11.1999 is obviously incorrect in the light of averments made in para 5 of the affidavit filed by Devendra Singh (complainant). 14. We have to see whether the appellants provided medical service below the requisite standards and whether the appellant Dr. S.N. Singh had no competency and committed any ross negligencewhile treating the complainant. It has come on record that the credentials of Dr. S.N. Singh are not doubtful. He is well-experienced orthopaedician. He has vast experience in the field and immediately attended the complaint. He gave conservative treatment of applying POP when the x-ray examination revealed fracture of both the bones in the left leg. The complainant did not adduce any evidence of medical expert to show that such treatment by itself was erroneous having regard to the nature of injury sustained by him. He had not suffered any bleeding injury. It further appears that immediate immobilisation of the left leg was necessary to prevent further injuries to the soft tissues. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that on 27.11.1999, he travelled to Dhanbad. The long distance travel in such precarious condition was not medically advisable. The medical literature shows that in such a case the patient is required to be duly attended. The relevant extract from Chapter titled ractures and Joint Injuriesfrom Textbook of Orthopaedics and Trauma (By G.S. Kulkarni) may be reproduced as follows:- oth ischaemic contracture and gangrene are preventable. Since irreversible changes may occur in an ischaemic limb within six hours, restoration of the circulation is a matter of extreme urgency. When arterial ischaemia has been diagnosed it must be relieved at once and, if reduction of a fracture does not produce improvement within two hours, the vessels must be explored forthwith. If ischaemic contracture is suspected, all circumferential pressure must be eliminated and the deep fascia enclosing the muscles widely incised. 15. Obviously, it was also duty of the complainant to immediately report the pains and numbness in the left leg to Dr. S.N. Singh. As stated before, there is neither any reliable material to prove that the complainant had informed Dr. S.N. Singh about pains in the same night nor there is any material to show that Dr. S.N. Singh orally directed the complainant to go to Sharda Clinic at Dhanbad. There is solitary version of the complainant by way of his affidavit filed in support of the complaint to show that he was directed by Dr. S.N. Singh to approach Dr. Kailash Prasad of Sharda Clinic at Dhanbad. No reference letter is issued by Dr. S.N. Singh to refer him to Dr. Kailash Prasad. The uncorroborated version of the complainant cannot be treated as gospel truth inasmuch as his conduct reveals fluctuations in his version. The complaint shows that averments of negligence were made against original opposite party no. 3, i.e., Dr. Kailash Prasad and other opposite parties nos. 4 to 7 too. At the final stage of hearing, the complainant dropped such allegations one by one. Thus, only the appellants were at the receiving end. The State Commission held both the appellants guilty of medical negligence for the reason that after the POP they should have conducted x-ray examination in order to ascertain whether the fracture portion was rightly set-up. It is observed: t is expected from any prudent Doctor in such circumstances to ascertain the position of the fractured wound after application of the POP. Had the x-ray been taken out by the OP Doctor, it could have easily ascertained as to whether POP has been properly applied. The cutting of the previous POP by Dr. Kailash Prasad of Sharda Clinic, Dhanbad applying in complete slab goes to show that initial plastering at the end of OP was too tight, which remained 24 hours causing the gangrene and ultimately resulted in amputation in left leg. 16. The above quoted observations of the State Commission are based on surmises. After the POP, immediate x-ray examination was not necessary in accordance with any standard medical practice nor it was the opinion of any other medical expert. One does not know how it could have revealed any swelling of the leg. The complainant neither examined Dr. Kailash Prasad, nor proved that the appellants had tightly applied the POP with excessive external force. The reasons ascribed by the State Commission, so as to attribute medical negligence to the appellant are inadequate and unacceptable. 17. In .P. Sreekumar (DR.) MS (Ortho) Vs. S. Ramanujam[(2009) 7 SCC 130], the Supreme Court held that bald statement of the complainant cannot be accepted to reach conclusion that the Doctor lacked expertise. It is observed that too much suspicion about the negligence of the attending Doctors and frequent interference by courts could be a dangerous proposition as it would prevent Doctors from taking decision which could result in complications and in such a situation the patient will be the ultimate sufferer. 18. In the light of observations of the Supreme Court, it will have to be said that the complainant failed to establish any specific negligence, rather ross-negligence committed by the appellants. Needless to say that the complaint ought to have been dismissed. The impugned judgement is, therefore, unsustainable. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeals. However, we are of the opinion that whatever amounts are paid to the Devendra Singh (complainant) may not be recovered from him inasmuch as he had already suffered a lot. Hence, we allow both the appeals and set aside the impugned judgement rendered by the State Commission. However, the amounts paid to Devendra Singh (complainant) be not recovered from him. The statutory amount deposited by the appellants, if any, be released in their favour alongwith the accruals.