SMN CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL Vs. GANGA HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.17 read with Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(2.) The first complainant is a voluntary consumer organisation and the second complainant is the consumer. It is their case that the second complainant was admitted in the first Opp. Party's hospital Coimbatore on 6.10.90 with profuse bleeding for 15 days. She was referred Dr. V. R. Thilakavathy, Professor of Gynaecology, Coimbatore Medical College Hospital who is the consultant attached to the first Opp. Party. She decided abdominal 'hysterectomy' on the second complainant on 7.10.90. The patient required blood transfusion. Her blood group was 'b'-Rh negative and accordingly the blood was obtained by the first Opp. Party from the second Opp. Party. During the operation on 7.10.90 two units of blood supplied by the second Opp. Party were transfused. The second complainant was discharged from the first Opp. Party's hospital on 14.10.90. According to the complainants, the second complainant took ill on 17.10.90 and was examined by Dr. Shanmuganathan of the 1st Opp. Party. Her blood was tested on 17.10.90 and it proved that she was infected with Serum Hepatitis: B. She was referred for treatment to Dr. K. Padmanabhan. Her SGPT value reached highest 151 OIU per ml of Serum on 5.12.90. Her blood test on 12.12.90 also showed Hebsagpositive:b. According to the complainants, the Doctors were unanimously of the opinion that her condition was due to the contaminated blood transfused to her. The second complainant underwent severe ailment for about 3 months and during the period she suffered from fever, joint pains, change of skin colour, itching, scaling and constipation. Her liver and brain were also affected. These were all due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the Opp. Parties. It is the further case of the complainant that the second complainant's husband was also infected from his wife and suffered from Hepatitis 'b'. He was also treated and he recovered from the ailment on 12.5.91. Hence this complaint claiming Rs.1,37,735/- for expenses of treatment incurred by the second complainant and her husband with interest thereon at 24%, Rs.4,00,000/- towards mental agony and pain, Rs.2,00,000/- towards additional financial burden for further treatment and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

(3.) The first Opp. Party has filed a detailed counter denying the allegations of negligence or deficiency of service. It is admitted that the second complainant came to the first Opp. Party's hospital with complaint of repeated bouts of bleeding per vaginum and consulted Dr. Shanmuganathan, Director of the first Opp. Party's Hospital. He advised her to consult Dr. Thilagavathy, attached to the said hospital as consultant. She advised admission in the hospital for hysterectomy and the patient was admitted on 6.10.90 at 9-30 a. m. On admission, the second complainant was examined in detail by the Junior Doctor, Dr. J. Geetha, and the history of her case as given by the second complainant has been noted down in the history sheet. Preoperative investigations were done. They were Urine for Albumin, Sugar and Deposits, Blood for Haemoglobin, Sugar and Urea, X-ray chest and ECG. The operation was fixed on 7.10.90. Arrangements were made to get blood from the second Opp. Party which is a well established, Government licensed approved blookbank. On the date of admission, one unit of B-Negative blood was given and during the operation another unit of blood was given. The blood bottles were accompanied by the certificates of the blood bank stating that the bottle has been verified Negative for Hepatitis B virus. The certifcates on the blood bottles were checked and verified for compatability before transfusion. But at the time of transfusion it is not advisable and it is also prohibited to draw blood from the bottle for test. The complainant was discharged on 14.10.90 after hysterectomy in a good condition. Subsequently, she felt unwell and consulted Dr. J. G. Shanmuganathan of the first Opp. Party's hospital. Tests done showed that she had Hepatitis B infection. The diagnosis 'serum Hepatitis" does not in anyway confirm that it was got only by blood transfusion. It could be got by any injection, any operative procedure and diagnostic procedure. It is possible that the second complainant and her husband were carriers of Hepatitis B even before the whole episode. The Doctors of the first Opp. Party's hospital never gave an opinion that jaundice suffered by the second complainant was definitely due to the blood transfusion. She was asked to consult Dr. K. Padmanabhan, Prof. of Medicine, Coimbatore Medical College and Senior Physician in the city regarding the management of jaundice. Dr. K. Padmanabhan also never gave an opinion that it was due to Blood transfusion. She was treated only as an out-patient in the first Opp. Party's hospital and her condition did not even warrant inpatient treatment. The first Opp. Party is not guilty of negligence or deficiency in service. The claim for damages is imaginary and unsustainable.