HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint was filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant Sima Kaibarta Das for the alleged medical negligence of the treating Doctors and the Hospital causing death of her husband.

2. The complainant Sima Kaibarta Das has filed the instant complaint case praying for the following reliefs :-

“i) A decree for a sum of Rs.5.50 lakhs, on account of costs incurred as pleaded in paragraph 27 hereinabove;

ii) A decree for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, on account of loss suffered by the complainant on account of mental agony, trauma and harassment as pleaded in paragraph 27 hereinabove;

iii) Interim interest and interest on judgment as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper;

iv) Costs;

v) Such further and / or other orders”.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.03.2015 the husband of the complainant late Debashish Kaibarta Das being a daily labourer along with some other persons was loading a truck over National Highway – II with stones near Bharat Cutout, P.S. Galsi. All on a sudden one truck bearing Registration No. WB 41/C/1473 while heading towards Durgapur, dashed the husband of the complainant, along with four other persons. Owning to such accident, the husband of the complainant suffered serious injury in both legs. Pursuant to the said accident, Galsi P.S. Case being No. 88/2015 dated 26.03.2015 under section 279, 337, 338, 304A of the I.P.C. was registered for investigation. The husband of the complainant was admitted at Burdwan Medical College & Hospital and subsequently he was referred to SSKM Hospital on the very next day i.e. on 24.03.2015. After being shifted to SSKM Hospital, the left leg of the deceased husband of the complainant was being operated by Unit - I of the orthopedic department of the emergency operation theatre on 27.03.2015. The right leg was kept under traction.

4. Further case of the complainant are that after a few days of operation, the Unit-I of the orthopedic department of the SSKM Hospital informed the relatives of the deceased including the complainant that their job is over and subsequent operation of the right leg will be done after necessary treatment by the plastic surgery department. After such observation as made by the Unit-I of the orthopedic department, the husband of the complainant was shifted to Curzon Ward at bed No. MX-5, on the 16.04.2015 under the supervision of the plastic surgery department.

5. Further case of the complainant are that on 16.05.2015 four Doctors from Unit-II of plastic surgery department visited the husband of the complainant, and as per their opinion plastic surgery was to be conducted as early as possible on both legs. But as per their opinion there was a possibility that the left leg might be amputated.

6. Further case of the complainant are that before 13.05.2015, a senior Doctor of orthopedic department, Unit – I during the course of his visit while reiterating their earlier stand informed the family members of the deceased including the complainant, that the right leg would be operated on after necessary treatment.  On hearing this the father-in-law of the complainant by letter dated 18.05.2015 requested the Superintendent of the opposite party No. 1 Hospital to constitute a necessary medical board, for treatment of the deceased Debashish Kaibarta Das, the husband of the complainant.

7. The Superintendent cum Vice Principal by letter dated 22.05.2015, constituted a medical board for the treatment of the said Debashish Kaibarta Das comprising the opposite party Nos. 2,3 & 4 Doctors.

8. Further case of the complainant are that after constitution of the medical board the treatment of the husband of the complainant was taken over by the medical board. The husband of the complainant was thereafter operated. After such operation, the husband of the complainant was slowly recovering and his condition was more or less stable.

9. Further case of the complainant are that on 12.06.2015 at around 10.00 a.m. as per the advice of the Doctors one unit of blood was transfused upon the husband of the complainant after being procured from the opposite party No. 5 blood bank. Soon after such transfusion, the health condition of the husband of the complainant deteriorated. Her husband developed symptoms like high fever, repeated vomiting and other fatal symptoms. The complainant and other family members of the deceased repeatedly requested the hospital authorities to look into the matter and to attend the patient. But unfortunately, none turned up on 12.06.2015 and the husband of the complainant remained unattended for the entire day. Ultimately, on 13.06.2015 at around 10.00 a.m. one Doctor visited the husband of the complainant and informed the relatives that the condition of the patient is very serious.

10. Further case of the complainant are that on 13.06.2015 at around 10.45 a.m., the husband of the complainant expired owing to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties failed and/ or neglected to perform their duty and / or to take due diligence and care in the treatment of the deceased.

11. Further case of the complainant are that from the photograph taken by one of the well wisher of the family of the deceased of the blood packet it was revealed that blood was administered to the husband of the complainant and it would reflect that there were clear illegalities and acts of negligence on the part of the opposite parties while administering the blood. It transpired from the photograph that the blood that was transfused unto the deceased husband of the complainant was due to expire on 13.06.2015 i.e. on the very next day.

12. Further case of the complainant are that the father-in-law of the complainant after the death of the husband of the complainant by letter dated 13.06.2015 lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of the SSKM Hospital. The brother-in-law of the complainant also lodged a complaint with the Bhowanipore Police Station.

13. Further case of the complainant are that from the post mortem report and from the forwarding report of the Bhowanipore Police Station it transpired that the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory failure but the real cause of death was due to infusion of expired blood.

14. Further case of the complainant are that the husband of the complainant fought for life for almost 24 hours, after being infused with such expired blood, however owing to the negligence of the opposite parties the husband of the complainant remained unattended after such infusion and ultimately collapsed on 13.06.2015.

15. Further case of the complainant are that after the death of the deceased, the complainant made several representations to the Medical Council of India as well as the opposite party No. 1 Hospital for handing over the medical documents of the deceased husband of the complainant including BHT, blood receipt documents, medical summary and all other related papers. The Medical Council of India by letter dated 17^th September, 2015 requested the opposite party No. 1 to take necessary action in the matter.

16. Further case of the complainant are that the family of the complainant had incurred substantial expenditure for the treatment of the husband of the complainant to the tune of Rs.5.50 lakh approximately.

17. Further case of the complainant are that due to utter negligence on the part of the opposite parties firstly in administering blood which was due to expire on the very next day and thereafter continuing negligence on the part of the attending doctors of the opposite party No. 1 Hospital in keeping the husband of the complainant unattended for 24 hours. The husband of the complainant met untimely death on 13.06.2015. The negligence on the part of the opposite parties is evident from the photograph of the blood pouch that was transfused unto the husband of the complainant.

18. Further case of the complainant are that the opposite parties had not followed the required procedure for blood transfusion leading to the untimely death of the husband of the complainant.

19. Further case of the complainant are that owing to negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant is entitled to recovery of the cost incurred by the complainant or her family members for the treatment of the deceased amounting to Rs.5.50 lakh. The husband of the complainant was the sole bread earner for the family of the complainant. The complainant having no source of income of her own is forced to live at the mercy of her in laws and parents. As such, the complainant is entitled to get compensation.

20. Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint case.

21. The opposite party No. 1 Hospital and opposite party No. 5 Blood Bank entered appearance in this case and were contesting the case by filing joint written versions denying the material allegations in the petition of complaint. Their specific case is that the complainant was / is not a consumer to the opposite party No. 1 Hospital. The complainant did not have any locus standi to file the complaint before this Commission.

22. Further case of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are that the opposite party No. 1 Hospital is a renowned super specialty Hospital where patients while admitted therein get all sorts of super structural benefits. There has not been any allegation against its nursing staff and staff rendering their services to the complainant’s husband, since deceased.

23. Further case of the opposite party Nos. 1  & 5 are that there has not been any specific allegation towards negligence to the husband of the complainant on the part of the opposite party No. 1 SSKM Hospital. The Superintendent cum Vice Principal by letter dated 22.05.2015 constituted a medical board for the treatment of the deceased Debashish Kaibarta Das as per request letter of the father-in-law of the complainant dated 18.05.2015. After the constitution of the medical board, the treatment of the husband of the complainant was taken by the medical board and after operation, the husband of the complainant was slowly recovering and his condition was more or less stable.

24. Further case of the opposite party No. 5 are that from the report of the enquiry regarding the complaints of Sri Biren Kaibarta Das it is clear that the committee members are unanimously came to the conclusion to the effect that there was no ambiguity in the fact that on the fateful day on 12.06.2015 at 10.00 a.m. the patient was transfused one unit of valid compatible O+Ve whole blood No. SSK-15-170-8/WB (crossmatch date 21.05.2015 of SSKM Blood Bank) and allegation of expired date blood transfusion is absolutely baseless.

25. Further case of the opposite party No. 1 & 5 are that the patient developed rigor and subsequently fever following transfusion of around 200 ml of blood and the transfusion was stopped immediately and the patient was injected and was injected medication as per doctor’s advice which brought relief of his symptoms. The patient was attended by the unit doctors and was alright subsequently in the rest part of the day. Plastic surgery unit members had an evening round and reported the patient to be alright in the rest of the night of that day i.e. 12.06.2015 to 13.06.2015 too. A special medical board formed for the treatment of the patient with complicated multiple injuries on 25.05.2015 found gross infection and discharge of pus from the left leg wound and that was fixed with external fixation device (done on 17.03.2015) by the orthopedic surgeon and recommended an antibiotic releasing beads on 28.05.2015, which lessened the infection to some extent, but the consultant plastic surgeon under whom he was being treated is of the opinion that the patient succumbed to his infections on 13.05.2015.

26. Further case of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 5 are that there has not been any allegation regarding super structural facilities enjoyed by the patient and there also has not been any allegation as regards different tests conducted by the Hospital. The allegation against the opposite party No. 1 Hospital towards administering the blood is motivated without any basis and denied.

27. Further case of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 5 are that the letter dated 22.06.2015 vide memo No. SSKM/BTS/176, written by MOIC, Blood Bank SSKM Hospital to the MSVP SSKM Hospital clearly indicates that there was no negligence on the part of the Blood Bank staff.

28. Further case of the opposite party No. 5 are that the allegation regarding the transfusion of blood is not at all correct. There has not been any negligence on the part of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 5. Without any expert’s report the opposite party Nos. 1 & 5 cannot be blamed.  The patient, since deceased, was admitted free of charge and enjoyed all benefits and thereafter, after the demise of the patient the complainant cannot make any claim of compensation. Hence, the opposite party Nos. 1 & 5 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.

29. The opposite party No. 2 Dr. B.K. Mazumder entered appearance in this case and was contesting the case by filing written version denying the material allegations as made in the petition of complaint. The specific case is that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party No. 2. The complainant did not hire any service against consideration and accordingly, the complainant is not a consumer. The specific case of the opposite party No. 2 is that no expert evidence has been filed in support of the complaint case by the complainant and in absence of any expert opinion the case of medical negligence cannot be proved.

30. Further case of the opposite party No. 2 are that on 24.03.2015, the patient Debashish Kaibarta Das was admitted in EOW (M-18) Male Ward with multiple injuries, mainly fracture of femur on right thigh and comminuted fracture both bone left leg with soft tissue loss over the fracture site. Subsequently, the patient was transferred to Curzon Ward, Bed No. MX5 under plastic surgery department instead of orthopedic unit. The patient was getting treatment from the same bed under plastic surgery department. The patient was kept for microvascular latissimus Dorsi transferred to effectively control local infection and coverage of the wound on 21.05.2015. But at that point, suddenly the patient’s relative had written to the Medical Superintendent cum Vice Principal, SSKM Hospital dated 18.05.2015 to set up medical board for expert opinion of senior doctors of concerned orthopedics and plastic surgery department and, accordingly, one medical board has been constituted with Dr. Ananda Kishore Pal, Orthopedics, Dr. Arindam Sarkar, Plastic Surgery and Dr. B.K. Majumder, Plastic Surgery. For the purpose of expert opinion, the patient’s family members did not give any consent for microvascular operation. The operation was postponed. During discussion in the medical board on 25.05.2015 and after inspection of the patient the wound on the left leg it was seen that there was gross infection of the wound and huge quantity of pus was pouring out. Prof. Dr. A.K. Paul opined that it would be better to reduce the infection and there cannot be think of any other operation. The orthopedic Deptt. took the patient to the orthopedic O.T. and arranged for application of antibiotic releasing beads so as to minimize infection. Infection did lessen but not sufficiently and, therefore, plastic surgery department also could not undertake soft tissue covering procedure. However, regular pressing as conducted accordingly. As the patient was appearing anemic, a bottle of blood was requisitioned for transfusion by determination of blood group on 12.06.2015 by the on duty doctors. The opposite party No. 2 did not make requisition for blood transfusion upon the patient. But after sometime on duty nursing staff informed the doctors in the MOT that the patient was rigor and accordingly as per advice of Doctors on duty blood transfusion has been stopped. Some remedial medicines were prescribed in the evening on 12.06.2015 the condition of the patient was stable. But in the morning on 13.06.2015 while doctor on round, the patient suddenly deteriorated and all measures were taken but the patient did not survive and died due to effect of multiple trauma. The blood bottle in question was of O+Ve group and expiry date was on 13.06.2015.

31. Further case of the opposite party No. 2 is that after the death of the patient, relatives of the patient lodged a complaint before the West Bengal Medical Council and also before the Bhowanipore Police Station where the opposite party No. 2 submitted written representation.

32. Hence, the opposite party No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.

33. The opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 doctors entered appearance in this case and were contesting the case by filing joint written version denying the material allegation in the petition of complaint. The specific case of the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 Doctors are that the complaint case is not maintainable as per the Consumer Protection Act. No expert evidence has been filed in support of the complaint case by the complainant and in absence of any expert opinion the medical negligence cannot be proved. The complainant is claiming Rs.5.50 lakh as cost incurred for medical treatment of the patient Debashish Kaibarta Das, since deceased, but not a single document like bills, vouchers has been filed with the complaint petition to show and prove the same. In absence of such bills, vouchers, the instant complaint is liable to be rejected. The opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 doctors only gave their expert opinion in the matter as per request of the medical superintendent of the hospital. The opposite party No. 3 doctor did not examine the patient during and initially after admission as well as at the end during the terminal event of the patient. The opposite party No. 3 doctor only took part of a minor surgery as per advice of medical board with satisfactory recovery following that surgery well before the terminal event of the operation. Other Doctors treated the patient advised transfusion of blood and also treated the patient at the critical stage. The opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 are unnecessary party to the complaint case.

34. Further case of the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 are that the patient Debashish Kaibarta Das was admitted at the hospital with severe injury in his legs and was treated by other doctors, not the opposite party No. 3 doctor under emergency.

35. Further case of the opposite party No. 3 & 4 are that as per the request of the relative of the patient, a medical board was constituted where the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 were members along with Dr. (Prof.) B.K. Mazumder from plastic surgery department. After infection of wound on the left leg it was found that there was gross infection of the wound and huge quantity of pus was pouring out. Accordingly, medical board opined to reduce the infection and then can be thought for any other operation. Accordingly, orthopedic department took the patient to the orthopedic O.T. and arranged for an application of antibiotic releasing beads so as to minimize infection of which the opposite party No. 3 was a part of surgical team following which surgery of the patient was satisfactorily recovered as evidenced by post operative medical records.

36. Further case of the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 are that they are not concerned about any treatment conducted by other doctors upon the patient Debashish Kaibarta Das during the critical terminal events, since deceased. They only performed their expertise view regarding the condition of the patient and for further course of treatment. But the opposite party No. 3 did not admit that the patient was under his care and did not plan for treatment after admission.

37. Further case of the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 are that the patient was treated free of cost. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. Hence, the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.

38. On behalf of the complainant, the complainant herself has filed evidence on affidavit. She has also given reply against the questionnaire set forth by the opposite parties. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 5, 3 & 4 and opposite party No. 2 have also filed evidence on affidavit separately in support of their case. They have also given reply against the questionnaire set forth by the complainant.

39. The complainant and opposite party No. 2, 3 & 4 filed brief notes of argument in support of their respective case.

40. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the pleadings of both sides, the following issues were framed for proper adjudication of this case.

i) Is the complaint case maintainable ?

ii) Are the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant ?

iii)  Is the complainant entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

Decisions with reasons :

Issue No. 1

41.  This issue is taken up first on consideration.

This issue has not been pressed by the Learned Advocates appearing for the parties at the time of hearing arguments. So, this issue is decided in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.

Issue Nos. 2 & 3 :

42. These two issues are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and their interrelatedness.

43. During arguments now Learned Counsel from both sides reiterated their evidence adduced before this Commission.  We have perused the records including the medical record and the evidences adduced by both the parties. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the record it is found that it is an admitted position that the complainant’s husband Debashish Kaibarta Das was a day labourer by profession and he and others on 23.03.2015 were loading a truck over National Highway – II with stones near  Bharat Cutout under P.S. Galsi.

44. It also an admitted position that one truck bearing registration No. WB 41/C/1473 while heading towards Durgapur dashed the husband of the complainant along with four other persons.

45. It is also an admitted position that owing to such accident Debashish Kaibarta Das suffered severe injury in both of his legs.

46. It is also an admitted position that over the said incident Galsi P.S. case No. 88/15 dated 26.03.2015 was started.

47. It is also an admitted position that the husband of the complainant was admitted to Burdwan Medical College & Hospital and subsequently he was referred to SSKM Hospital on the very next day i.e. on 24.03.2015.

48. It is also an admitted position that on 24.03.2015 the patient Debashish Kaibarta Das was admitted in EOW (M-18) Male Ward with multiple injuries.

49. It is also an admitted position that subsequently the said patient was transferred to Curzon Ward, Bed No.MX5 under plastic surgery department instead of orthopedic unit.

50. It is also an admitted position that while Debashish Kaibarta Das was admitted in the SSKM Hospital, the patient’s relatives had written to the Medical Superintendent cum Vice Principal of SSKM Hospital to set up a medical board for expert opinion of senior doctors and concerned orthopedic & plastic surgery department. Accordingly, a medical board has been constituted.

51. It is also an admitted position that there was gross infection of the wound and huge quantity of pus was pouring out.

52. It is also an admitted position that the patient was suffering anemic, a bottle of blood was requisitioned for transfusion by determination of blood group on 12.06.2015 by the on duty doctors.

53. It is also an admitted position that on 12.06.2015 at around 10.00 a.m. as per the advice of the doctors one unit of blood was transfused upon the husband of the complainant after being procured from the opposite party No. 5 blood bank.

54. It is also an admitted position that on 13.06.2015 at about 10.45 a.m. the husband of the complainant expired owing to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

55. Now, we shall have to consider as to whether Debashish Kaibarta Das, the husband of the complainant, since deceased, expired owing to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

56. It is alleged by the complainant that real cause of death was due to infusion of expired blood. On the contrary, the opposite parties have denied that the blood which was transfused on the patient, was expired. It appears from para no. 17 of the petition of complaint filed by the complainant that the blood that was transfused into the deceased husband of the complainant was due to expire on 13.06.2015 i.e. on the very next day. From the above, it can safely be held that expired blood has not been transfused into the deceased husband of the complainant.

57. It transpires from the letter dated 22.06.2015 issued by MOIC, Blood Bank, SSKM Hospital that the said blood unit was supplied on 11.05.2015 and there was no negligence on the part of the blood bank staff. After testing the said blood was supplied on demand in time.

58. It is in evidence that the blood bottle in question was of O+Ve group and expiry date was on 13.06.2015. It is not the case of the complainant that mismatch blood was transfused into Debashsih Kaibarta Das, since deceased.

59. Under these facts and circumstances and on consideration of the evidence and materials on record we may conclude that expired blood has not been transfused on the patient Debashish Kaibarta Das, since deceased, rather, it is proved that valid blood was transfused to the patient.

60. It is in evidence on record that on 24.03.2015, the patient Debashish Kaibarta Das was admitted in EOW (M-18), Male Ward with multiple injuries and subsequently, the patient was transferred to Curzon Ward, Bed No. MX5 under plastic surgery department instead of orthopedic unit. The patient was getting treatment from the said bed under plastic surgery department.

61. It is also in evidence that the patient was kept for microvascular latissimus dorsi transferred to effectively control local infection and coverage of the wound on 21.05.2015.

62. It is also in evidence that the patient’s relatives had written to the Medical Superintendent cum Vice Principal, SSKM Hospital on 18.05.2015 to set up a Medical Board for expert opinion of senior doctors and accordingly, a medical board has been constituted.

63. It is also in evidence that for the purpose of expert opinion, patient’s family members did not consent for microvascular latissimus dorsi operation and the operation was postponed.

64. It is also in evidence that the patient was appearing anemic, a bottle of blood was requisitioned for transfusion by determination of blood group on 12.06.2015 by the on duty doctors and blood was duly transfused upon the patient.

65. It is also in evidence that a special medical board was formed as per the request of the father-in-law of the complainant dated 18.05.2015 for the treatment of this operation with complicated multiple injuries on 25.05.2015 found gross infection and discharge of pus from the left leg wound and that was fixed with external fixation device and recommended and undertook application of antibiotic releasing beads on 28.05.2015 which lessened the infection to some extent.

66. From the above evidence, it is clear to us that the treating doctors and the hospital took all necessary steps to save the life of the patient. This fact also proves that the opposite party doctors and Hospital took all possible proper care during transfusion of blood and the complainant failed to produce any evidence to show that the blood was contaminated. The complainant has also failed to produce any test report to show that blood was contaminated and not useable.

67. From the petition of complaint it appears to us that the complainant has claimed Rs.5.50 lakh as cost incurred for medical treatment of the patient Debashish Kaibarta Das, since deceased. On scrutiny of the record we find that no single document like bills, vouchers has been filed with the complaint petition to show and prove that the complainant incurred Rs.5.50 lakh as cost for medical treatment of her husband. In absence of such bills / vouchers, the case of the complainant can be disbelieved. The enquiry committee was formed on the basis of the complaint lodged by Biren Kaibarta Das. The enquiry committee submitted their report on 18.04.2016. The committee members unanimously came to the following conclusions :-

          “1. There was no ambiguity in the fact that, on that fateful day of 12.06.2015 at 10-00 AM, the patient was transfused one unit of valid compatible O+ve whole blood No. – SSK-15-170-8/WB (crossmatch date 21.05.2015 of SSKM Blood Bank) with date of expiry on 13.06.2015 and the allegation of expired date blood transfusion is absolutely baseless.

2. The patient developed rigor and subsequently fever following transfusion of around 200 ml. of blood and the transfusion was stopped immediately and the patient was injected medications as per doctor’s advice which brought relief of his symptoms. The patient was attended to by the unit doctors and was alright subsequently in the rest part of the day. Plastic surgery unit members had an evening round and reported the patient to be alright in rest of the night of that day (12.06.15/13/06/15) too.

3. Special medical board, formed for the treatment of this patient with complicated multiple injuries, on 25.05.15, found gross infection and discharge of pus from the left leg wound that was fixed with external fixation device (done on 27.03.15 by the Orthopedic Surgeons) and recommended and undertook application of antibiotic releasing beads on 28.05.15, which lessened the infection to some extent but the Consultant Plastic Surgeon under whom he was being treated, is of the opinion that the patient succumbed to his infections on 13.05.15 morning.”

68. The said report proves that there was no ambiguity in the fact that on the fateful day on 12.06.2015 at 10.00 a.m. the patient was transfused one unit of valid compatible O+Ve whole blood No. SSK-15-170-8/WB (crossmatch Date 21.05.2015). The said report also proves that the patient developed rigor and subsequently fever following transfusion of around 200 ml. of blood and the transfusion was stopped immediately and the patient was injected medicines as per Doctor’s advice which brought relief of his symptoms. The patient was attended to by the unit doctors and was alright subsequently in the rest part of the day.

69. The said report also proves that plastic surgery unit members had an evening round and reported the patient to be alright in the rest of night of that day. The said report also discloses that a special medical board was formed for the treatment of the patient and they found gross infection and discharge of pus from the left leg wound and that was fixed with external fixation device and recommended and undertook application of antibiotic releasing beads on 28.05.2015 which lessened the infection to some extent. But the consultant plastic surgeon under whom he was being treated was of the opinion that the patient succumbed to his infection on 13.05.2015 in the morning. The said expert report has not been challenged by the complainant before any higher authority. Therefore, the said report remains unchallenged. The report submitted by the Expert Committee may be considered correct and true.

70. It is alleged that the effect of transfusion with contaminated blood is fatal and a blood which is near to the expiry date is bound to get contaminated. It is also alleged that the transfusion of such blood leading to the fatalities is also negligent acts of the opposite parties for not attending the husband of the complainant ultimately, resulting in death of the husband of the complainant due to cardio respiratory failure. We fail to accept the said allegation as stated by the complainant as because the complainant has not filed any paper / report to show that the blood which was given to the deceased Debashish Kaibarta Das was contaminated due to the nearby expiry date. Unless and until the complainant proves by filing report that contaminated blood was transfused to the deceased Debashish Kaibarta Das it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party hospital.

71. It is alleged that the complainant’s husband died on 13.06.2015 due to transfusion with contaminated blood and with expired blood. It is alleged in the petition of complaint that after the death of the husband of the complainant the brother-in-law of the complainant lodged a complaint with Bhowanipore Police Station by letter dated 14.06.2015. On scrutiny of the record it is found that on receiving the written complaint of the brother-in-law of the complainant, Bhowanipore Police Station started a case on 24.03.2015. The police investigated the case as usual. The post mortem examination was held on the dead body of Debashish @ Debasish Kaibarta Das. The complainant filed post mortem examination report before this Commission. The said post mortem examination report reveals that cause of death was due to the effect of injuries as mentioned in the post mortem report, anti mortem in nature. There is no whisper that after being transfused with expired blood and / or after being transfused with contaminated blood, the patient died.

72. Under these facts and circumstances it cannot be said that expired blood and / or contaminated blood was transfused into Debashish Kaibarta Das, since deceased and the opposite parties were negligent in treating the said deceased.  

73. Under these facts and circumstances and on consideration of the said report it may be concluded that expired date blood was transfused upon the patient was not correct.

74.  We appreciate the pain of the complainant but then that by itself cannot be a cause of awarding compensation for passing away of her husband. We have sympathy for the complainant but sympathy cannot translate into legal remedy. Having regard to the discussion done we are of the considered view that the negligence as lodged against the treating doctors or the opposite party hospital cannot be substantiated and, thus, the complaint cannot be allowed.

75. In the result, the complaint be and the same is dismissed.

76. There will be no order as to costs.