Appeared at the time of arguments:

For Dr. Manpreet Kaur              : Mr. Shahryar Khan, Advocate

                                                    Mr. Pranav Singh Sethi, Advocate

                                                    Mr. Prakash Chandra Pancholi, Advocate

For Dr. Navdeep Kaur               : Ms. Aanchal Jain, Advocate

For Kirti Sood                            : Ms. Girija Wadhwa, Advocate

                                                    Mr. N. P. Sharma, Advocate

For Respondents – 1 to 5          : None

1.       This Order shall decide three Appeals arising from the same impugned Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 6/2011.          

2.       The State Commission passed Order against the Opposite Parties. The State Commission held the Opposite Parties negligent jointly and severally, and awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith the cost of litigation Rs.50,000/-.  The OP No. 1 was also directed to bear all the expenses, which may be incurred on the future treatment of Complainant No. 1 in any Government hospital/ health center/dispensary etc.

3.       For the convenience, the parties are being referred to as position held in Consumer Complaint before the State Commission.

4.       The relevant facts of the case are that in December 2010, Mrs. Suman-(Complainant No.1-patient) a full-term was admitted Government Multi-Speciality Hospital (OP-1, for short "GMSH") for her safe delivery.  Due to anaemia she was required blood transfusion.  The treating doctors Dr. Navdeep (OP-3) and Dr. Manpreet (OP-4) instructed patient’s husband Mr. Des Raj (Complainant No.2) to arrange a unit of blood and handed over the blood samples for testing in the blood-bank.  The blood-bank technician -Ms. Kirti Sood (OP-2) after testing issued one unit of B+ve blood and same was transfused to the patient who was A+ve.  The patient developed complications, her condition deteriorated.    It was further alleged that immediately no doctor was available to tackle the emergency.  Therefore, the foetus died and the patient (mother) also suffered kidney failure.  It was due to the negligence of the doctors who wrongly administered B+ve blood instead of her blood group A+ve.  Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Complaint against the OPs before the State Commission.

5.       The OPs filed their respective replies and denied any negligence or deficiency in service.  The OP-1 submitted that the Complainant cannot be considered a ‘Consumer’ under Section 2(i)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the hospital is owned and managed by the Chandigarh Administration and provides free services to all individuals. The Opposite Party also claimed that the Complainant had a history of previous still births and was anaemic at the time of admission. Additionally, it was stated that it was uncertain if the wrong blood transfusion caused the fetal death and that the Complainant was referred to PGI, Chandigarh for further treatment. The Opposite Party maintained that a thorough inquiry was conducted and disciplinary action had been initiated against Opposite Parties No.2, 3, and 4 for negligence. It was denied that the Complainant would remain bedridden for life and require lifelong medical care. The Opposite Party further denied any deficiency in service or involvement in unfair trade practices and denied the remaining allegations.

6.       The OP-2—Ms. Kirti Sood submitted that the complaint was not maintainable as the matter in controversy required more detailed evidence than what could be adduced in a summary procedure. It was also contended that the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer was illegal because it relied on events related to the co-admission and hospitalization of two patients with the same name, whereas there were actually three patients with the same name admitted at the same time. Opposite Party No.2 argued that the inquiry officer had failed to discover the existence of the third patient and that this rendered the inquiry report baseless. It was also submitted that the Blood Grouping Register and Blood Issue Register showed that Opposite Party No.2 had not been negligent in performing their duties. The remaining averments were denied as being wrong.

7.  The OP-3—Dr. Navdeep submitted that she was an intern undergoing practical training in the hospital, which is a part of the MBBS course, under direct supervision of a Senior Medical Officer. She stated that the intern is not considered to be providing any service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and is entrusted with clinical responsibility only under direct supervision. OP-3 denied any wrongdoing in relation to the blood transfusion and stated that the transfusion was started in a Clean Labour Room without any attendants. She also mentioned that the Complainant had experienced quick pregnancies before, resulting in stillbirths due to her debilitated condition, and had exceeded her expected due date by two days. She denied that there was any failure of the kidney of complainant No.1 due to the wrong transfusion of blood group and stated that the patient was put on dialysis to combat any possible damage. She also denied that the death of the foetus was due to the wrong blood transfusion and explained that immediate remedial measures were taken when the mistake was discovered. Dr. Navdeep stated that the patient was managed well and given free treatment at PGI, and all other allegations made in the complaint were denied. She concluded by stating that the answering party was not deficient in rendering service and requested the complaint to be dismissed.

8.       The OP-4—Dr. Manpreet submitted that, she was a House Surgeon on a contract basis appointed by Opposite Party No.1-GMSH. She claims that she was not present in the labour room at the time of the incident and was off-duty at 8 pm on 16.12.2010. Dr. Manpreet denies any knowledge of wrong blood transfusion or any deficiency in service. She also claims that the enquiry conducted by the SDM (South), UT, Chandigarh was not fair and proper as the principles of natural justice were not followed. Dr. Manpreet argues that Complainant No.1 did not hire her services for consideration and thus, is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(i)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. She further states that all other allegations made in the complaint are baseless and unfounded.

9.       The State Commission upon hearing the parties, partly allowed the Complaint and directed the OPs jointly and severally to pay the Complainant Rs. 4,00,000/- towards compensation with cost of Rs.50,000/-.  The OP-1 was further directed to bear all future treatment expenses for the patient. 

10.     Being aggrieved the OPs filed the above mentioned Appeals before this Commission. 

11.     I have heard the arguments from the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the material on record, inter-alia the Impugned Order and few literature on blood transfusion.

12.     After thoughtful consideration, it is transpired that the Chandigarh Administration accepted the facts of the case.   The inquiry report dated 03.01.2011 was submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, South, UT Chandigarh which concluded as below:

"The Inquiry Committee implicates the following persons in the Commission of this gross medical negligent act:-

1) Mrs. Kirti Sood, Lab Technician: She issued the blood bag without cross-checking for the requisite important details of the patient and more particularly the blood group and later on concealing the facts and tampering with the sample. The possibility of destruction of the sample and the blood requisition form cannot be excluded by the Inquiry Committee.

2) Dr. Navdeep, Intern: She initiated the transfusion to the patient without checking and re-checking the requisite details of the patient with the details given on the blood bag and started the transfusion on the presumption that the blood bag lying beside the patient is meant for the patient only, violating all the fundamental blood transfusion protocols. Moreover, she failed to inform her seniors regarding the transfusion and showing gross carelessness and insensitivity failed to monitor the patient.

3) Dr. Manpreet, House Surgeon: The role played by Dr. Manpreet, the House Surgeon is also not a small one. She being wholly responsible for the transfusion of the blood to patients in the labour room, failed to check for the required details in the blood bag with that of the patient’s case sheet as soon as the blood bag was brought and kept on the table by the nursing student. Without even checking for the details on the blood bag she simply passed on responsibility of the transfusion to her amateur/new junior colleague. Moreover, she did not follow up the patient and failed to monitor the patient.”

13.     The question for consideration arises that whether the death of foetus and the renal impairment of the patient were due to wrong transfusion of blood group by OP-2 to 4.  It is an admitted fact that the OP-1 GMSH in its written statement fairly admitted the negligence of OP-2 to 4, same was affirmed by the SDM in his inquiry report. One unit of blood was requisitioned by Dr. Amarjeet Kaur and the same was advised to be transfused to the patient. It an admitted fact that the Lab technician, Ms. Kirti Sood had supplied the blood for transfusion from the Blood Bank, and under supervision of Dr. Navdeep, the blood was transfused to the patient.  In my view, it was the duty of the ward staff nurse to check the unit of blood carefully for the name, age, sex, registration number and the blood group before the start of transfusion.  It appears that the doctor and intern were under supervision of seniors.    Therefore, their role was very limited.  The actual procedures and transfusion was the duty of nursing staff who should be more vigilant.  Thus, the hospital was liable vicariously.

14.     From the evidence and the medical record it is evident that due to transfusion reaction (wrong blood transfusion) the patient suffered acute renal failure and she was transferred to PGI, Chandigarh for further management.  Even in my view, the death of the foetus was due to the transfusion reaction.  The patient was treated in PGI, Chandigarh from 17.12.2010 to 21.01.2011 and she was recovered from acute renal failure.  Thereafter, she was on medication and follow up.   She was now no more on dialysis and her kidneys are normal.

15.     It is pertinent to note that the due to the negligence of the OPs, the couple (Complainants no.1 and 2) lost their foetus also.  They have suffered mental and physical agony, who certainly deserve adequate compensation.   The State Commission awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- payable jointly and severally alongwith the cost of litigation Rs.50,000/-.  However, in my view, the State Commission erred that the OP-2, 3 and 4 were working in the OP-1 hospital. It was the “Contract of Service”.  Therefore, the OP-1 is vicariously liable for the negligence of its servants.  Thus, the entire compensation as awarded by the State Commission, shall be paid by the   OP-1.    

16.     It is transpired that the OP-1 hospital has paid its share of compensation to the Complainant (Order dated 28.01.2019).  However, considering the principle of vicarious liability in “Contract of Service”, the Order of the State Commission is modified as below:

The OP-1 is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- within six weeks from today; failing which, the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realisation. 

All the three First Appeals are disposed of with the modification.