BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.698 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.244 OF 2005 DISTRICT FORUM KAKINADA
Between:
- Smt Velidi Lalitha Kumari
W/o late Velidi Kameswara Rao
Age 40 years, Occ: Housewife - Velidi Mounica, age 11 years, D/o late Velidi
Kameswara Rao, Occ: Pupil - Velidi Harika, age 9 years, D/o late Velidi
Kameswara Rao, Occ: Pupil
The appellants no.2 and 3 being minors rep. by
the mother and natural guardian Smt Velidi Lalitha
Kumar, the 1st appellant.
(All are R/o D.No.64-1A-3/4, Treasury Colony
S.Atchutapuram, Kakinada
Appellants/complainants
A N D
1. Dr.K.Sreemannarayana Rao
Sri Konaseema Specialties Hospital
College Road, Amalapuram
2. The United X-Ray & Laboratories
SBI Street, Amalapuram
3. In-charge, blood Bank, Indian Red Cross
Society, Gandhinagar, Kakinada
4. Raghava 24 hours Emergency Hospital
Nookalamma Temple Street, Ramaropeta
Kakinada
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants Sri Dama Sheshadri Naidu
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Sri A.V.Raghu Ram
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 None
Counsel for the Respondent No.4 Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER.
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The facts of the case as seen from the comlaint are that on 18.11.2004, the husband of the 1st complainant and the father of the 2nd and 3rd complainants approached the opposite party no.1 hospital with the complaint of fever. The opposite party no.1 advised the complainant no.1 to admit her husband in the hospital for the purpose of blood transfusion. The blood test was conducted by the opposite party no.2 on 18.11.2004 and informed the complainants that the blood group of the husband of the complainant no.1 was B negative and on the advice of the opposite party no.1 the complainant no.1 brought the B Negative blood from the opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.1 transfused the blood to the husband of the complainant without testing the blood brought by the complainant no.1. As a result the condition of the husband of the complainant no.1 was deteriorated and became serious.
3. It is submitted that the opposite party no.1 advised the complainant no.1 to shift the deceased to Kakinada Hospital or any other hospital by issuing a letter dated 19.11.2004. The complainant no.1 shifted the deceased to the opposite party no.4 hospital. The complainant no.1 along with one person from opposite party no.4 approached the Rotary Club Blood Bank with the sample of the blood and requested to supply B-negative blood but the in-charge of the Rotary Club Blood Bank refused to supply B-negative on the ground that the sample brought by them was B-positive. In spite of transfusing B-positive blood to the first complainant’s husband, his condition became worse and he died on 24.11.2004.
4. The opposite party no.1 has contested the claim contending that he had conducted clinical examination and provisionally diagnosed the complainant no.1 husband as suffering from chronic malaria with gross bloodlessness and vomiting induced by chloriquin tablets. It is submitted that the opposite party no.1 advised the complainant to shift the patient to a higher medical centre for better treatment and meanwhile he requisitioned the service of the opposite party no.2 for conducting tests. The opposite party no.2 collected blood sample from the patient at the hospital of the opposite party no.1 and pending the report of the opposite party no.2 the opposite party no.1 treated the patient for controlling vomiting and dehydration. The opposite party no.2 gave report that the blood group of the patient as “B” and “RH” typing “negative” and that there was significant reduction in the red and white cell count. The opposite party no.1 collected the blood sample of the patient and gave it to the complainant to be taken to a blood bank of Indian Red Cross Society Kakinada. The brother of the patient secured blood from the blood bank along with compatibility certificate issued by them.
5. It is submitted that the test conducted by the opposite party no.3 has shown that the blood group of the patient was “B” “RH” typing negative. On request of the complainant no.1 the opposite party no.1 transfused the blood brought from the opposite party no.3 to the patient. The complainant no.1 had shifted the patient to a hospital at Kakinada. No complications arose on transfusion of the blood from the opposite party no.3 to the patient. The opposite party no.1 is an experienced physician in treating all cases of emergency. He is an MD in Pediatrics and previously worked as Assistant Physician in Government Hospital, Guntur. The patient survived for about one week about transfusion of blood. It is submitted that transfusion of B group positive blood may be exact cause of death of the patient.
6. The opposite party no.2 has filed the counter stating that on 18.11.2004 it had examined the patient on reference by the opposite party no.1 and sent the report to the opposite party no.1. The blood group of the patient was reported as B group and the second opposite party has not stated at any time that the blood group of the patient was B negative. The patient was transfused with B Positive blood. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party no.2.
7. The opposite party no.3 has contested the case on the premise that he has received a request on 18.11.2004 along with the blood sample of the patient for supply of the blood. B-Negative blood was sought for. He had tested the sample of the blood of the patient and found that it was B-Negative. In the requisition, it was mentioned that there was previous transfusion of the same group of blood to the patient. The sample sent along with the requisition tallied on test with B Negative, the third opposite party had issued compatibility certificate as also the required blood . The blood bank being run by the opposite party no.3 is maintained by Red Cross Society Kakinada under the guidance of Dr.v.Ramakrishna Rao. The compatibility certificate issued by the opposite party no.3 was retained instead of returning it to the opposite party no.3. The blood sample was tested by the opposite party no.3 and found it to be B-Negative.
8. The opposite party no.4 has contested the claim contending that the husband of the complainant no.1 was brought to the opposite party no.4 hospital on 19.11.2004 at midnight in a serious condition as he was suffering from high fever and he was unable to walk. The blood group of the patient was found to be B-Positive and the opposite party no.4 requested the complainant and the patient’s brother to bring B-positive blood and the same group of blood was brought by them and was transfused to the patient. The default and deficiency in the treatment rendered prior to the admission of the patient in the opposite party no.4 hospital is not within the knowledge of the opposite party no.4 and the opposite party no.4 is not responsible for any of such act. The patient’s brother and the complainant no.1 had given written consent that they would not claim any damage or loss which may be occurred during the course of treatment. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party no.4 and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. The complainant no.1 has filed her affidavit and the affidavit of V.Srinivasa Rao. Exs.A1 to A22 had been marked.
10. The opposite party no.1 has filed his affidavit.
11. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that the complainants have not proved that the sample of blood as to from whom it was taken and who had taken the sample as also who had sent it to the opposite party no.2 and that the complainants also failed to prove whether the blood group of the patient are B-Positive or B-negative.
12. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant has filed appeal contending that the blood group of a person will not change on a day to day basis and that the statement of the complainant no.1 that her husband’s blood group was B-Positive was not contradicted by the opposite parties. It is submitted that the opposite party no.2 has stated that he had not certified nor diagnosed the blood of the patient to be B negative.
13. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether there was deficiency in service in testing the blood sample of the patient and certifying it to be B-Negative by the opposite party no.2 and B-Positive by the opposite party no.4?
2) To what relief?
14. POINT NO.1 The husband of the complainant no.1 approached the opposite party no.1 hospital on 18.11.2004 with the complaint of high fever. The opposite party no.1 has stated that he had rendered provisional treatment in order to stop or restrict vomiting and dehydration. The opposite party no.1 states that the patient was not in a position to walk and as such he had sent for the opposite party no.2 for testing of the blood sample of the patient. It is the version of the opposite party no.1 that he had collected the blood sample and gave it to the complainant to be taken to the blood bank to secure blood. The opposite party no.2 had tested the blood sample of the patient and certified that it was B-Negative. The opposite party no.2 has supported the version of the first opposite party no.1 and the opposite party no.1 referred to the compatibility certificate issued by the opposite party no.3 stating that the blood group of the patient was B-negative and the same group of blood secured from the opposite party no.3 on the basis of reported of the opposite party no.2 was transfused to the patient by the opposite party no.1.
15. After the husband of the complainant no.1 was shifted on 19.11.2004 by the opposite party no.4 hospital, the patient’s blood sample was sent to Rotary Club, Blood Bank Kakinada where it was tested and found that it was B-Positive but not B-Negative. The oppose parytno.4 had transfused the B-negative blood supplied by the Rotary club Blood bank, to the patient whereon the patient died. Thus, the opposite parties no.1 to 3 on one hand and the opposite party no.4 on the other hand had attempted to shift the burden on one another. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the mismatching of the same group of blood does not lead to the loss of life of the patient.
16. We had an occasion to consider the blood group compatibility chart submitted on behalf of the opposite parties no.1 to 3. It reads as follows :
Blood Group Compatibility Chart |
Recipient's
Blood group | Can Accept Blood from: |
Red Cells | Whole Blood | Plasma |
O +ve | O +ve
O -ve | O +ve
O -ve | Any O, A, B or AB |
O -ve | O -ve | O -ve | Any O, A, B or AB |
A +ve | A +ve, A -ve,
O +ve or O -ve | A +ve or A -ve | Any A or AB |
A -ve | A -ve or O -ve | A -ve | Any A or AB |
B +ve | B +ve, B -ve,
O +ve or O -ve | B +ve or B -ve | Any B or AB |
B -ve | B -ve or O -ve | B -ve | Any B or AB |
AB +ve | AB +ve, AB -ve
A +ve, A -ve
B +ve, B -ve
O +ve or O-ve | AB +ve or AB -ve | Any AB |
AB -ve | AB -ve,
A -ve,
B -ve or
O -ve | AB -ve | AB |
17. From the above it is very clear that the can accept the blood from either B+ve B-ve or O+ve, O-ve red cells and B+ve or B-ve of whole blood and plasma of any B or AB. The opposite parties no.1 to 3 contend that the blood group of the patient is B negative whereas the opposite party no.4 submits that the patient’s blood group is B positive. None of the opposite parties could ascertain the correct blood group of the patient. Any of the opposite parties could prove that the blood group of the patient was either B Positive or B negative. The attempt of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to show that the transfusion of the blood of mismatched blood group does not lead to loss of life of the patient indicates that the diagnosis as to the blood group of the patient was not done in accordance with the standard required in this regard and the test was not done with due diligence and the same is the case with the opposite parties no.3 and 4. The opposite parties have been negligent in conducting the test as to find out the correct blood group of the patient.
18. This brings us to the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the complainants. The factors such as the husband of the complainant no.1 had not died due to the transfusion of either B negative or B positive blood to him and the ailments he was suffering from, which had necessitated him to approach the opposite party no.1 and subsequently the opposite party no.4, comes in to picture for the purpose of quantification of the damages. These facts prove the mitigating circumstances while the pain and suffering undergone by the husband of the complainant no.1 though the transfusion of the blood is not the sole cause for the cause of pain and the mental agony suffered by the complainants nourishing the impression that the patient died due to transfusion of the incorrect group of blood are the factors weighing on the side of the complainants. Taking into consideration of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that Rs.15,000/- would be the reasonable amount to be awarded as compensation in favour of the complainants. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow the complaint holding the opposite parties no.1 to 4 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the complainant.
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties no.1 to 4 directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.24.12.2010
KMK*
