A roadside accident left a young man with a mangled lower leg and a desperate hope: could doctors save the limb? Brought to a private hospital in critical condition, he was diagnosed with a severe crush injury—both bones shattered, blood supply nearly absent, and the leg attached by a narrow strip of tissue.

Doctors explained that immediate amputation was the safest course. But the family, unwilling to accept the loss, begged for a last-ditch attempt to salvage the limb. Written consent for a “salvage trial surgery” was signed after the risks were explained: multiple operations, high infection risk, and the near certainty of eventual amputation.

Surgeons performed emergency vascular repair and external fixation, stabilising the fracture and trying to restore circulation. Over the next thirteen days, however, blood flow remained poor and the wound failed to heal. The patient was discharged with instructions for follow-up and a warning that future amputation might still be required.

The very next day, at another hospital, doctors noted an infected wound with no distal circulation and amputated the leg above the knee to prevent life-threatening infection. Convinced that negligence and delayed action had cost him his limb, the patient sued for compensation, alleging that his condition was falsely recorded as “stable” at discharge and that doctors failed to monitor his deteriorating leg.

The district consumer forum initially sided with the patient, awarding significant damages. But on appeal, the state commission overturned the order, pointing out that standard protocols had been followed, informed consent was on record, and there was no expert evidence of deviation from accepted medical practice.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has now upheld the state commission’s decision. Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings on medical negligence, it emphasised that a doctor is not liable merely because treatment fails. The records clearly showed that the injury was catastrophic from the outset, that the family insisted on an attempted salvage, and that the eventual amputation was a medically foreseeable outcome.

IML Insight

This case underscores the limits of medicine when faced with catastrophic trauma. Even heroic surgical efforts cannot guarantee success, and consent documents matter—especially when families choose a risky procedure against medical advice. Courts will not infer negligence where protocols are followed and the patient is fully informed, no matter how tragic the outcome.

Source : Order pronounced by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 14th February, 2025.