- (1.) THIS is a complaint under Section 17(a)(i) read with Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act' for convenience) wherein compensation has been claimed by the complainants on account of death of Smt. Tarawati Devi, wife of complainant No. 1 and mother of the remaining complaints.
(2.) THE averments in the complaint stated in brief are that opposite party No. 3 -Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital and Research Centre is run by Bhilai Steel Plant where the complainant is an employee. It was stated that on account of her health problem Smt. Tarawati Devi was taken for treatment to O.P. No. 3 hospital. It was diagnosd that Smt. Tarawati Devi had stones in Gall Bladder and she was advised to undergo cholecystectomy operation. Further averments in the complaint are that O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 informed the complainant No. 1 that the operation would be of minor nature and would require admission in the hospital for a couple of days only. It was averred that Smt. Tarawati Devi was admitted in the O.P. No. 3 hospital on 17.5.1997. Complainant further averred that on pathological test it was reported that her blood group was 'O' positive. On 19.5.1997 cholecystectomy operation was performed on Smt. Tarawati Devi at about 3.00 p.m. by O.P. No. 1 Dr. S. Diwan and O.P. No. 2 Dr. B.P. Dave, assisted by one Dr. Adarsh. It was further averred in the complaint that after the operation there was profuse bleeding which could not be stopped till 10.00 p.m. on the date of operation and Smt. Tarawati Devi was, therefore, shifted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU). However, pain persisted till morning of 20.5.1997 and though the complainant No. 1 reported the said condition of his wife Smt. Tarawati Devi to O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 as well as to the nursing staff, but he did not get proper response from them. It was further averred by the complainant that the condition of Smt. Tarawati Devi continued to deteriorate. On 21.5.1997 Smt. Tarawati Devi expired in the hospital. The cause of death was stated to be of 'Multi -organ failure due to transfusion reaction'.
(3.) FURTHER averments of the complainant are that on inquiry he came to know that though the blood group of his wife Tarwati Devi was 'O' positive, she was given blood of 'B' positive group due to negligence of Opposite parties. The complainant further averred that the entire staff of the O.P. No. 3 hospital including O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 who had operated upon Smt. Tarawati Devi were negligent in the transfusion of the blood and her operation. Therefore, the Opposite parties including the management of Bhilai Steel Plant - O.P. No. 4, is also liable to pay him damages. The complainant claimed total damages to the tune of Rs. 19,80,000/ -, as detailed by him in the complaint. The complaint has been resisted by Opposite parties. O.P. No. 1 has filed its separate written reply, in which it was averred that O.P. No. 3 hospital has a well equipped full fledged pathological department with blood -bank and it is looked after by qualified Doctors and technicians. It was further averred that the blood bank after testing the blood of the patient Smt. Tarawati Devi reported that her blood group is B.Rh.+ve. It was averred that as there was extensive bleeding from the liver bed during operation of Gall Bladder of Smt. Tarawati Devi, blood was required to be given to her. Accordingly, requisition was sent to blood Bank. Blood group of B.Rh. +ve with cross match report was supplied by the Blood Bank. Records were again cross checked with the case file and blood transfusion was started. The operation was thereafter completed. It was averred that operation was successful. On subsequent examination at 3.30 p.m. on 19.5.1997 the patient was found to be conscious, oriented and he pulse and blood pressure were within normal limits. Little soakage was noticed at the drain site which normally happens in such operation. There was no profuse bleeding at 3.30 p.m. on that date. It was further averred that at 7.30 p.m. on 19.5.1997, profuse bleeding and serious soakage at the drain site was noticed. Blood pressure had also fallen. Therefore, resuscitative measures were promptly and timely started and possible complication of slippage of ligature of cystic artery was thought of, after discussion by the O.P. No. 1 with O.P. No. 2 and other team members of the surgical unit. Therefore, an early re -exploration by way of surgery and control of bleeding under general anaesthesia was contemplated about which consent was obtained from complainant No. 1. Blood Bank was directed to arrange for 3 more units of blood and one unit was received which was transfused to the patient. It is further averred that as the patient was not responding to the treatment as expected, further pathological investigations were done and it was reported at this juncture that the blood group of the patient was 'O' Rh.+ve. Therefore, the operation was cancelled and the patient was shifted to surgical unit of ICU for intensive care and further management of anticipated complications. It was denied that due post -operative care and attention was not given to the patient after the operation, as was averred by the complainants. It was further averred that transfusion reaction due to which the death of Smt. Tarawati Devi occurred had no correlation with the performance of operation. It was further averred that O.P. No. 1 is a senior consultant surgeon and has performed hundreds of cholecystectomy operations in the hospital and no patient ever succumbed to such operation. It was averred that there was no negligence on the part of opposite party No. 1 in performing surgery on Smt. Tarawati Devi.;