Back
2011(2) CPR 70
JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAMMU
G.D. Sharma, President and Mr. B.L. Saraf, Member
Vijay Talashi & Ors. —Complainants
versus
Acharya Shri Chandra College of
Medical Science and Hospital Sidhra
& Anr. —Opposite Parties
Complaint No. 2234 of 2001
Decided on 27.9.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. P.N. Raina, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.1:Mr. Subodh Singh Jamwal, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.2: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Transfusion of mis-match blood constitutes medical negligence.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g)—Complaint alleging Medical negligence—Case of complainants that deceased died because of professional negligence of the OPs in administering him of blood of wrong group—Held standard to be applied to determine whether there was negligence is the standard of ordinary person exercising skill in that profession and highest expertise is not expected— The witness of OP No.2 who was working as Principal Medical College, Jammu unequivocally deposed that normally in hospitals no blood is transfused to the patient on the basis of blood test report, conducted out side the hospital and without cross—matching— In view of such a prevalent practice, which had been established by their own witness of professional high standing as a Principal of Government Medical College, a professional duty was cast upon OP No.2 hospital to get the blood group of the deceased tested and cross— matched with the donor before any transfusion was done on him— The defence taken in the written version by OP No. 2 that only operation theatre facilities along with other connected facilities were provided paled into insignificance when there was mis—match of blood group— They ought to have taken due care and caution in dealing with the life of a human being—Professional negligence on the part of OP Nos. 1, 2 held to be proved to the hilt and their conduct was actionable under law— Direction given to OPs to pay a compensation of Rupees ten lacs to the complainants, along with interest @ 8% p.a.—Complaint allowed. (Paras 10 to 12)
G.D. Sharma, President—The complainants have claimed a sum of Rs.10 lacs as compensation from the OPs, on account of the death of Janki Nath Pandit @ (Talashi), who was husband of complainant No.1, father of complainants 2 and 3 and son of complainant No.4. It is alleged that he died due to professional negligence committed by OPs in giving him medical treatment. The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that on 13.12.2000, Janki Nath Pandit (deceased hereinafter) felt stomachache and for investigation and treatment was taken to OP No.1 which is a private charitable Medical College/Hospital. The concerned doctor suspected that deceased was suffering from Gastro Outlet Blockade Obstruction, and for the confirmation of the ailment testes were recommended which were got done from the laboratory of OP No.1 against payment as are reflected in Annexure A colly 7 to 9. Annexure B attached with the complaint records the blood matching of the deceased and it is shown A1 B+ve. There were many doctors working in OP1 (Hospital) and one of them was Dr. Anil Ganjoo who had also checked him. On the basis of investigations conducted, the concerned doctors of OP No.1 advised surgery. The deceased had his dwelling place at a considerable distance from the premises of OP No.1 so for convenience sake, he chose to undergo surgery in OP No.2. He got himself admitted as an indoor patient on 27.12.2000 and in the record of OP No.2 his condition was shown: “the patient well preserved with all parameters with normal limits”. On the same day i.e. on 27.12.2000, same doctor Anil Ganjoo at 4.30 p.m. did surgery on the deceased for Gastric Outlet Obstruction and blood transfusion of group A1B+ve was given along with requisite medicines. The deceased did not pass any urine and his condition deteriorated. Opinion was sought from nephrologist (Dr. S.K. Bali) who opined that there was Haemolysis which led to acute renal shut down. In next 48 hours, there was no progress in his renal functioning so he was referred by the same nephrologist to Government Medical College, Jammu where he got admission on 30.12.2000 and was put on dialysis. On 3.1.2001 twice his blood was sent for cross-matching. After analysis, the concerned technician verbally reported his blood group as O+ve whereas, his blood group in the reference record of OPs was shown A1B+ve. The record of OP No.2 further showed that after his surgery 4 units of At B+ve blood had been administered to him. The G.M.C Hospital authorities, for authentic confirmation of his blood group, again sent sample for cross- matching in the Hospital Laboratory. On 4.1.2001, vide OPD/MRD No.253440 WARD 9 CC BED B1 LAB No.67. The result of the test was received which showed and confirmed the deceased’s blood grouping as O+ve (Annexure E Page 77). Thereafter, the concerned Doctors of G.M.C. Jammu administered blood of O+ve group to the deceased. The case history record of the deceased of GMC Jammu dated 11.1.2001 shows “hat the deceased was in oliguric phase of acute Tubular Necrosis due to intravenous haemolysis following mismatch blood transfusion”. The attendants of the deceased, for further confirmation, got the blood grouping match done on 4.1.2001 from private investigating concern known as “Shivalik Clinical Laboratory ,Jammu”. Dr. B.S. Pathania who is the owner of the said clinical laboratory, confirmed that his blood grouping was O+ve. The deceased died in I.C.U. of GMC. Jammu on 12.1.2001 at 6.45 a.m. His death certificate is attached as Annexure G.
2. The case of the complainants is that there was palpable negligence firstly, on the partofOP-1 for testing deceased’s blood which was shown At B+ve contrary to the actual blood group of O+ve. Secondly, or -2 was equally negligent either by relying upon the blood grouping done by OP-1 or doing itself because after the surgery , the deceased was administered blood of the group of Al B+ve which resulted in mis-matching with the actual blood group of
