Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.07.2017
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party no. 1 and 2 to pay the compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- along with Rs. 16,941/- against medical and other with 9% interest.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as Litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he took his ailing mother Smt. Usha Devi to Shyamal Hospital (opposite party no. 1) on 18.05.2005 with a complain of high fever. She was admitted for treatment in the said Hospital on the same date i.e. 18.05.2005 after deposit of necessary charges and was allotted room no. 215. During the course of treatment transfusion of 2 unit of blood was advised by opposite party no. 2 on 22.05.2005 and accordingly 1 unit of blood was made available from patliputra blood bank i.e. opposite party no. 3 and the said blood was administered by the doctor i.e. opposite party no. 2 and concerned staff.
Again as per advice of opposite party no. 2 another 1 unit of blood was arranged from opposite party no. 3 on 23.05.2005 and the transfusion of blood started to Usha Devi without cross matching of the blood due to which the condition of complainant’s mother began detoriating and she was shifted to ICU where she remained 3 days i.e. from 23.05.2005 to 25.05.2005.
It is further alleged by the complainant that on 25.05.2005 the treating doctor i.e. opposite party no. 2 administered 1 unit of DNS to Smt. Usha Devi in 12 Hrs. and due to negligence and carelessness of opposite party no. 2 said 1 unit of DNS was administered within a very short period of 1 hr. of opposite party no. 2 and his paramedical staff. This action had an extremely adverse effect on the patient due to which her condition further detoriated but the opposite party no. 2 and other staff of the Hospital did not take any steps and measure to save the valuable life of complainant’s mother Usha Devi who ultimately died on 26.05.2005.
It has been further asserted that after administration of DNS to the mother of the complainant opposite parties were giving false assurances but they did not take proper care and also did not take corrective measures to save the life of mother of complainant who died pre – mature death causing sever agony and mental harassment to the complainant and his family.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 a written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant. It has been asserted by opposite party that Usha Devi was admitted in the Hospital with fever as well as with rigor, lever, anacmia enlarged lever and spleen and was in poor shape right from the begining. After investigation, malaria was detected after checking her blood sample on 2 occasions and it was difficult as the blood got infected.
In Para – 9 of the written statement of opposite party no. 1 and 2 following facts have been asserted, “that the statement contending in Para – 6 and 7 of the complaint petition it is stated that since the patient was anamic and she was in need of blood transfusion hence the same was advised and the complainant himself and the complainant arrange the blood from Patliputra Blood Bank, Ashok Rajpath, Patna. The transfusion of blood is routine process whenever it required to the patient and the blood is always transfused after proper cross matching had already been done in the blood bank and in the hospital which is a minor and normal process. The allegation against the doctor opposite party no. 2 about transfusion of blood without cross matching is false and afterthought and hypothetical and the big hospital like Shyamal Hospital this cheap type of tricks for filing the complaint are not acceptable and denied.”
On behalf of opposite party no. 3 a written statement has also been filed stating therein that neither any complain has been made against opposite party no. 3 nor any relief has been made against opposite party no. 3.
On behalf of complainant a reply has been filed repeating the same fact and same allegation that doctor and paramedical staff of hospital transfused the blood without any proper testing which resulted into reaction to the deceased due to which her condition detoriated and she ultimately died.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 a written argument has been filed denying the allegation and justifying the course of treatment.
Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in detail.
The complainant has alleged that the blood was transfused without proper cross matching. This fact has been denied by opposite party no. 1 and 2.
It goes without saying that it is the duty of the complainant to prove his case for which he was required to adduce evidence etc. in support of his allegation. The documents filed on behalf of complainant does not reveal the truth. It has not been specifically stated that mother of complainant was having blood of which group and the opposite parties had administered the blood of different group. This fact is not revealed from the several annexures filed by the complainant.
There is no expert report of medical board on the record to show the negligence on the part of opposite party no. 1 and 2.
It is needless to say that this forum has no jurisdiction to decide disputed fact. In this case the complainant alleged negligency on the part of opposite party no. 1 and 2 and opposite party no. 1 and 2 has asserted that there was no negligency on their part. No purpose will be served in repeating the same fact again and again.
For the discussion made we find no material to prove deficiency on the part opposite party no. 1 and 2.
For the reason stated above this complaint stands dismissed but without cost.
Member President
