: J U D G M E N T :
This is an application filed by Sabitri Jha against OP No. 1 to 4 viz., OP 1, the Superintendent, District Hospital, No. 2, Dr. Sudeb Biswas, OP No. 3, Head of the Blood Bank, OP No. 4, Sri Goutam Dey staff of Saktinagar District Hospital under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the case are as below:-
The complainant was suffering from bleeding fissure (anal). She was admitted for treatment at the District Hospital, Saktinagar on 05.08.14. OP No. 2 doctor treated the patient. OP No. 3 is the head, blood bank and OP No. 4 opined that ‘A Negative’ blood should be given to the patient, complainant. But afterwards the OP No. 3 opined that ‘A Positive’ blood should be given to the patient. There was wrong diagnosis with regard to blood group and naturally blood of wrong group was injected/transferred into body of the petitioner causing her suffering due to negligence of the opposite parties. The matter was brought to the notice of the Superintendent who although assured investigating into the matter did not keep his promise. The petitioner suffered harassment and claimed for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- and cost of the suit etc.
The opposite party, the Superintendent of District Hospital and three others filed written version on 02.01.15. The facts of the written version, briefly stated as below:-
The complaint is not maintainable as the Superintendent District Hospital did not charge a single farthing from the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer. The claim of compensation is excessive. District Hospital is a necessary party. Actually the complainant was anaemic and she was being treated by OP No. 2, Dr. Sudip Biswas. Blood Samples of the petitioner was sent to Saktinagar Blood Bank along with requisition of two units of blood on 07.08.2014. One unit of ‘A Negative’ blood was issued from the Saktinagar blood bank. On 08.08.14 after cross matching it was found that blood of ‘A Positive’ was necessary for the treatment of the complainant. Second unit of blood was transfused to the patient. The condition of the patient improved after blood transfusion. Bleeding was controlled and the complainant was discharged on 11.08.14. A prima facie enquiry was held by the Superintendent. There was no negligence on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complaint should be dismissed.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer?
- Point No. 2: Were the OPs negligent causing injury to the claimant?
- Point No. 3: What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
We have meticulously gone through the evidence of PW-1 of Sabitri Jha filed on 23.02.15, the interrogatories of the answers of the petitioner against the interrogatories of the opposite parties. We have also appreciated in the evidence of DW1, Superintendent of District Hospital, Somnath Sarkar who deposed for all the OPs. We have also gone through the interrogatories against evidence of DW1. We have also meticulously gone through the documents filed before us. Annexure – 1 is the Hospital documents showing blood requisition. Annexure – 2 is another blood requisition dtd. 10.08.14 and Annexure – 3 is also health document of his Department of Family Welfare. Annexure – 4 is the complaint lodged by Bhusan Jha against mismanagement of the Hospital regarding transfusion of wrong group of blood. Both parties filed brief note of argument. We have also heard.
It has been admitted by Ld. Advocate for the OP that there was the minor mistake of the technical staff of blood bank of the Hospital but it cannot be said to be a negligent act in the true sense of term causing no injury was caused to the complainant. We have gone through the case laws reported in AIR 2005 SC 3180, Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and another. We have also gone through Balaram Prasad case reported in (2014) 1 SCC 384. We have also considered the ratio decidendi of Bolam case. Having considered AIR 2015 SC 2836, V. Krishna Kumar Vs. State we are inclined to hold that the complainant did not spend a single paisa for her treatment by the three OPs. Thus, we are inclined to hold that the complainant is not a complainant as defined in the 1986 of the Consumer Protection Act. We have also gone through the principles ratio decidendi in Bolitho case and we are inclined to hold this is not a case of medical negligence in the true sense of the term. It is a case of inadvertence by a technical staff of the blood bank for which the complainant could not establish that she suffered injury or loss. Thus, we are inclined to hold that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case CC/2014/128 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
