STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Sandeep Kumar s/o Bidhi Chand r/o Shaheed Bhagat Singh Colony, Gurudwara Wali Gali, Amloh Road, Khanna District Ludhiana, Punjab.

                                                                .…Complainant

                                Vs.

1.     Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research Chandigarh through its Director.

2.     Civil Hospital, Khanna, through its Senior Medical Officer.

                                                        …. Opposite Parties

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU,    MEMBER

Argued by:

Complainant in person.

                Sh.Rajesh Garg, Advocate for OP-1.

                Sh.Amit Mehta, Advocate for OP-2             

                                ---

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant has been suffering from bleeding disorder i.e. Hemophilia–A since his birth. It was stated that Hemophilia-A is a disease in which clotting factor VIII is absent in blood, due to which, once bleeding starts even from minor injury then it does not stop normally and to stop the same the fresh frozen plasma transfusion is required.  It was further stated that on 02.01.2009, the complainant suffered some injuries, on his person, and was admitted in Civil Hospital Khanna for his treatment. According to the complainant, he told the treating doctor about his previous history, regarding the treatment taken by him from the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh (for short PGIMER) but the said doctor instead of referring him to the PGIMER gave a pain killer tablet i.e. Lyser-D due to which his condition became worst and he suffered from Malina (bleeding in stool). It was further stated that the complainant was discharged, from the hospital, on 05.01.2009, by the treating doctor, by asking him that he was fit and he was advised to continue the treatment from the PGIMER. Thereafter, the complainant was admitted in the PGIMER on 05.01.2009 and took treatment upto 18.2.2009. During this period he got several fresh frozen plasma transfusions. The complainant further averred that he got severe allergic reaction, from one FFP Transfusion, and then the doctor gave some injections to stable his condition but after some days he noticed that colour of his urine became dark and he suffered loss of appetite.  It was further stated that the complainant was advised some blood tests and, thereafter, he was diagnosed for Hepatitis C positive, with genotype 3.  On 7.2.2009, the complainant approached Dr.R.K.Dhiman, Additional Professor, Department of Hepatology, PGIMER who advised him to go for the treatment of chronic Hepatitis C in the form of injection PegInterferon Alfa2a for 6 months and the total cost would be approximately Rs.3,41,952/-. It was further stated that due to Hepatitis C, he could not apply for the post of nurses and his married life suffered a lot because he could not plan for a baby.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were, thus, deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint was filed, seeking a compensation of Rs.90 lacs. 

2.                                          In its written reply, Opposite Party No.1, stated that reactions to Fresh Frozen Plasma (FFP) are known to occur in multi-transfused individuals, because of sensitization to the proteins present in blood components. However, the reaction that occurred, during current hospitalization of the complainant could not be responsible for development of Hepatitis-C in him.  It was further stated that for Anti HCV test to become positive, it takes 8-12 weeks, after exposure to infective material.  However, the treatment of the complainant was initiated on 05.01.2009 and HCV test became positive on 27.01.2009 (test was reported on 29.01.2009).  It was further stated that . in this interval of 22 days (3 weeks), the test could not become positive and, as such, the Hepatitis-C virus positivity in the complainant, could not be related to the current hospitalization stay and treatment.  It was further stated that .all blood and blood products in PGIMER are screened for HIV I & II antibodies, Hepatitis B surface antigen, Hepatitis C virus antibody, VDRL and material parasite in compliance with the Blood Bank rules within the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, Govt. of India, and only the blood and blood products that test negative for above mentioned infections are issued for transfusions.  It was further stated that, the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

3.                    In its written reply, Opposite Party No.2, stated that the complainant was admitted in Civil Hospital, Khanna on 02.01.2009. On medical examination, it was found that there was no visible injury on the person of the complainant and he was only complaining of some pains.  It was admitted that the complainant was suffering from Hemophilia-A since birth.  It was denied that the complainant was ever prescribed tablet Lyser-D. It was further stated that the complainant admitted in the hospital upto 12.30 p.m. of 05.01.2009 and by that time his condition was clinically stable.  It was further stated that the complainant was prescribed tablet Lyser-20 by Orthopedic Specialist Dr.Sudhir Sethi. According to the Opposite Party, there is a lot of difference between the chemical composition and specially the side effect of the tablet lyser -20 and tablet Lyser –D.  It was further stated that the complainant, being qualified nurse, intentionally mentioned wrong facts, with an ulterior motive to get compensation.  It was further stated that the complainant himself stated that he was getting treatment from PGIMER and, therefore, he was advised to continue his treatment from PGIMER. All other averments made in the complaint were denied.  It was stated that, the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    Initially Opposite Party No.2 appeared through Sh.Amit Mehta, Advocate, but subsequently it remained absent and, as such, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.02.2012.  Thereafter, the application for setting aside the exparte proceedings order dated 16.02.2012 filed by the Counsel for Opposite Party No.2 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.05.2012.

5.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.                    We have heard the complainant, in person, Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, very carefully. 

7.              According to the complainant, he has been suffering from bleeding disorder i.e. Hemophilia–A since his birth and getting treatment from PGIMER. Admittedly, the complainant was admitted in PGIMER on 05.01.2009, and took treatment upto 18.2.2009. During hospitalization, he got several fresh frozen plasma (for short FFP) transfusions and several allergic reactions, from one FFP transfusion.  The treating doctor gave him some injections to stable his condition. According to the complainant, the colour of his urine became dark and there was loss of appetite. The doctors advised him for some blood tests which were conducted on 29.01.2009 at PGIMER from where he was diagnosed as Hepatitis C positive with genotype-3. On 7.2.2009, he approached Dr.R.K.Dhiman, Additional Professor, Department of Hepatology, PGIMER who advised him to go for treatment of chronic Hepatitis-C in the form of injection PegInterferon Alfa2a for 6 months and the total cost of the same was approximatelyRs.3,41,952/-. According to the complainant, due to wrong transfusion of FFP, he suffered all these complications due to which his whole life has been spoiled, which amounted to medical negligence. 

8.              The Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 submitted that reactions to Fresh Frozen Plasma (FFP) are known to occur in multi-transfused individuals because of sensitization to the proteins present in blood components.  He further submitted that the reaction that occurred during current hospitalization of the complainant could not be responsible for development of Hepatitis-C.  The Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that for Anti HCV test to become positive, it takes 8-12 weeks after exposure to infective material.  He further submitted that the treatment of the complainant was initiated on 05.01.2009 and HCV test became positive on 27.01.2009 (test was reported on 29.01.2009).  It was further submitted that in this interval of 22 days (3 weeks), the test could not become positive and, as such, Hepatitis-C virus positivity in the complainant could not be related to the current hospitalization stay and treatment. 

9.              The complainant with a view to counter the submission of the Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 placed reliance on the letter dated 09.06.2011, C-8 (Colly.) information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi wherein Dr.Sujoy Pal, Professor/Public Information Officer answered question No.1 to the effect that incubation period of HCV was from 2 weeks to 5 months. 

10.                 We do not find any force in the submission of the complainant, in this regard, as the perusal of AASLD Practice Guidelines-Diagnosis, Management, and Treatment of Hepatitis C: An Update by Marc. G.Ghany, Doris B.Strader, David L.Thomas and Leonard B Seeff  under the heading Diagnosis of Acute And Chronic HCV Infection And Interpretation of Assays at page 1338 reveals that HCV RNA, could be identified as early as two weeks following exposure, whereas, anti-HCV is generally not detectable before 8-12 weeks.  As in the present case, the treatment of the complainant was initiated in PGIMER on 05.01.2009 and the Anti HCV test became positive on 27.01.2009 (test was reported on 29.01.2009). According to the medical literature referred to, in this paragraph, during the interval of 22 days (3 weeks), when the complainant remained admitted in PGIMER, the test could not become positive. Therefore, Anti HCV virus positivity in the complainant could not be related to the current hospital stay and treatment in PGIMER particularly when Dr.Pankaj Malhotra, Additional Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, PGIMER, Chandigarh deposed in para No.5 of his affidavit that all blood and blood products are screened for HIV I & II antibodies, Hepatitis B surface antigen, Hepatitis C virus antibody, VDRL and material parasite in compliance with the Blood Bank Rules within the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, Govt. of India and only the blood and blood products that test negative for above mentioned infections,  are issued for transfusions.  He further deposed that Hemophilia A is a congenital bleeding disorder and FFP transfusions are issued to these patients, as life saving measures.  Whereas, the complainant has miserably failed to prove by leading any tangible and cogent evidence, that due to wrong transfusion of FFP during his treatment, in PGIMER for the period from 05.01.2009 to 18.02.2009, his Anti Hepatitis-C test became positive.  Keeping all these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that there was no medical negligence, on the part of Opposite Party No.1.

11.                 In so far as the medical negligence of Opposite Party No.2  is concerned, the complainant submitted that on 02.01.2009, he suffered some injuries and was admitted in Civil Hospital, Khanna, where he complained that there was pain in elbow and knee joints and the treating doctors prescribed him the pain killer tablet i.e. Lyser-D and after consuming the same his condition became worse and he suffered from Malina (bleeding in stool) and, thereafter, he was discharged on 05.01.2009 with the advice to continue his treatment with PGIMER.  

12.                 On the other hand, the Counsel for Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the complainant was admitted in Civil Hospital, Khanna on 02.01.2009 as medico legal case and on medical examination, no visible injury on his person was found though he was complaining of some pains. He further submitted that in order to give some relief to the complainant from pain, he was prescribed Tablet Lyser-20 by Orthopedic Specialist Dr.Sudhir Sethi and not Lyser-D as alleged by him, because there was a lot of difference between the chemical composition and specially the side effect of the tablet lyser -20 and tablet Lyser–D.

13.                 The perusal of record, on the file, reveals that the complainant was admitted in Opposite Party No.2-Hospital on 02.01.2009 as a medico legal case and thereafter when no bone injury was found, on his person, and keeping in view his stable condition, he was discharged on 05.01.2009. During these three days, no other treatment was given to him except tablet lyser –20 and not tablet Lyser-D as alleged by him (complainant). The complainant failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove that OP-2 ever prescribed him tablet Lyser-D instead of Lyser–20. We are of the considered view, that, in the absence of any tangible and cogent evidence, having been produced by the complainant, no case of medial negligence, is made out against Opposite Party No.2, and thus the complaint qua it also deserves to be dismissed.

14.                 For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any medical negligence, on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Hence the complaint, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

15.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                                                  Sd/-

June 1, 2012                             [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER{RETD.]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

Cm                                                                                                                      

            Sd/-

 [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER