P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT - (1.) THE complainants son Master Akshay aged about 11 months was admitted in the 2nd opposite party hospital for complaint of loose motions. After treatment he was discharged on 13.8.1997. Again on 31.8.1997 the boy was admitted for complaint of fever and cough. He was under the treatment of Dr. P. Madan Mohan Rao of opposite party No. 2 hospital who diagnosed the disease allergic breathlessness and anaemic. Since the body was anaemic the doctor advised blood transfusion and accordingly as per the advise of the said doctor the complainant approached opposite party No. 1 Blood Bank on 1.9.1997 along with donor Mr. J. Narsing Rao. Opposite party No. 1 after conducting necessary tests informed that the blood of the donor is suitable to the patient and that the blood was good and accordingly issued a Donor Card wherein it was clearly mentioned that H.I.V. I & II Negative . Accordingly opposite party No. 1 Blood Bank collected the blood from the donor, received Rs. 425/ - towards charges, packed the blood of the donor and handed over the same to the complainant for transfusion to the patient. The second opposite party after going through the reports furnished by the opposite party No. 1 transfused the blood to the complainants son who was discharged from the hospital on 3.9.1997 after collecting Rs. 2,975/ - towards hospital bill. However as there was no improvement in the condition of the boy, Dr. P.M.M. Rao advised the complainant to consult Dr. P.S. Murthy of M/s. Mahaveer Hospital and Research Centre, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. The boy was admitted in the said hospital for treatment on 6.10.1997. As blood test was advised by Dr. P.S. Murthy, the complainant got his sons blood examined by M/s. Pooja Pathological Laboratory Diagnostic Service, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad. On 8.10.1997 the complainant on seeing the reports came to know for H.I.V. test it is reactive in screening asseny. Mahaveer Hospital discharged the patient but advised for testing of H.I.V. Western Blot Test (AID)  at Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences. NIMS also by their report confirmed the same. The opposite party No. 1 negligently conducted H.I.V. I & II test and gave an incorrect report. The opposite party No. 2 without verifying the correctness of the report issued by opposite party No. 1 transfused the blood to the patient which resulted with the boy contacting most dreaded disease i.e., for which there is no cure. Instead of keeping quiet the complainant is using Ayurvedic medicines without any hope and there is no improvement in the condition of the boy. Hence the complainant issued notice to both the opposite parties claiming a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs and filed the complaint.
(2.) IN the written version filed by the 1st opposite party it is stated that when the complainant brought one Mr. Narsing Rao, a prospective donor, the 1st opposite party drew the blood sample from the donor, tested and cross -matched the same with the blood of the recipient and found it suitable for transfusion. It screened the donors blood carefully but could not find any evidence of Antibodies for either HIV type I or II. The rest procedure used for detecting the aforesaid antibodies HIV I + II Immunodot Test Kit Combaids -RS is sensitive and 100 per cent accurate. In view of the accuracy of the test in detecting the presence of antibodies for HIV the complainant cannot contend that his son was attacked with AIDS through transfusion of blood supplied by opposite party No. 2. In view of the past history of diarrohea and repeated chest infections the child could have been possibly infected with H.I.V. virus much before blood transfusion. It is much probable that the complainant might have suppressed earlier transfusion of contaminated blood or the blood might have got infected at the time of birth or through contaminated needles earlier. In the case of Narsing Rao the test is conducted by Enzyme Linked Immono Assay (Elisa) of IG G, type. The report issued by NIMS further recommends that the same has to be confirmed by Western Blot technique.
(3.) THE second opposite party in a separate counter while admitting the treatment given to Akshay as alleged by the complainant stated that the Blood Banks are licensed by the Drug Controller which is the Licensing Authority of the Government to draw the blood, screen and supply the same after complying all the statutory requirements. The Blood Banks before issuing compatibility certificate are supposed to check the blood for all blood transmitted diseases and the receiving hospitals are supposed to believe the genuineness of the certificates issued by the Blood Banks. Hence placing reliance on the certificate issued by the first opposite party is not deficiency in service. The complainant filed Exs. A1 and A25 besides filing his affidavit. The opposite party No. 2 filed counter and affidavit, but no documents filed by either of the opposite parties. Hence the point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, to what extent.;