Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Employees State Insurance Corp. Hospital
and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Mohinder Singh and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.49 of 2013
(Against the Order dated 31/08/2012 in Appeal No.1422/2009 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 18.6.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 58(1)(b)) – Revision Petition – Against the Order dt. 31.08.2012 in Appeal – Matter relates to medical negligence/failure in duty of care on part of treating doctors at ESI Hospital, Ludhiana resulting in death of the Respondent no. 1’s wife (patient) due to blood transfusion reaction - District Forum held Petitioners negligent on the principle of ‘res ipsa loquitor’ in administering mismatched or contaminated blood to the patient and compensation of Rs.500,000/- was directed to be paid by the Petitioners along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs - State Commission vide its Order dt. 31.08.2012 dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner No.1 – Hence, the Revision Petition - One unit of blood was transfused on 14.09.2004 and the 2nd unit was transfused after 7 days - ESI Hospital failed to produce cogent evidence that for 7 days where and how the 2nd unit of blood was stored and preserved properly - 2nd unit of blood was used after 7 days of its issuance which caused transfusion reaction and patient’s death – No jurisdictional error or legal principle ignored by State Commission - No miscarriage of justice which needs interference with the impugned Order of the State Commission.
Held: It is pertinent to note that the case of Complainant was not a case of faulty operation or any complication arising out of the operation. We note, admittedly, in the hospital one unit of blood was transfused on 14.09.2004 and the 2nd unit was transfused after 7 days i.e. on 21.09.2004 at 9.40 AM and immediately the patient showed transfusion reaction.
In addition, the referral letter issued by the ESI Hospital and as per the Medical summary (Ex-C-11) of CMC Ludhiana (Respondent No. 5) that it was the case of blood transfusion reaction. The ESI hospital failed to produce cogent evidence that for 7 days where and how the 2nd unit of blood was stored. The blood unit should have been stored at 40 C in a specialized refrigerator having alarm facility (blood storage refrigerator). It was the duty of hospital to send the unused blood unit back to the blood bank for proper storage and called whenever it was needed. If the blood is not stored properly it may deteriorate by hemolysis and/or contaminated. If it was stored in the freezer hemolysis (destruction) of blood will occur and transfusion of such blood evokes fatal transfusion reactions.
The District Forum and the State Commission held that the two blood units were issued by the Blood Bank (Respondent No. 6) on 14.09.2004 and one unit was transfused on 14.09.2004. The 2nd unit of blood was used after 7 days of its issuance which caused transfusion reaction and death of the patient. The Opposite Party No.2 hospital failed to prove that the 2nd unit of blood was preserved properly and there was no hemolysis after 7 days before transfusion done on 21.09.2004.
The State Commission has passed a well-appraised reasoned Order. It has concurred with the findings of the District Forum. We do not find any crucial error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below. In the exercise of the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission we do not find jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice which needs interference with the impugned Order of the State Commission. (Paras 9 to 12)
Result: Revision Petition, being ill-conceived and without merit, dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 1422 of 2009, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioners was dismissed and the Order dated 08.07.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 577 of 2006 was affirmed.
2. Heard arguments from the learned counsel for both the sides.
3. The matter relates to medical negligence / failure in duty of care on the part of the treating doctors at Employees State Insurance Corp. Hospital Ludhiana (for short “ESI Hospital”) resulting in death of the patient due to blood transfusion reaction.
4. The District Forum vide its Order dated 08.07.2009 arrived at the findings that after transfusion of second bottle (unit) of blood the patient developed severe complications and died. The ESI Hospital had no proper facility for storage of blood bottles. On the principle of ‘res ipsa loquitor’, District Forum held the Petitioners negligent in administering mismatched or contaminated blood to the patient. The complaint against Petitioners was allowed and against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 was dismissed. Compensation of Rs.500,000/- was directed to be paid by the Petitioners along with Rs.5000/- as litigation costs.
5. The State Commission vide its Order dated 31.08.2012 dismissed the Appeal No. 1422 of 2009 filed by the Petitioner No.1. The relevant extracts of the appraisal made by the State Commission in its impugned Order are reproduced below:
“21. The wife of respondent no.1, namely Smt. Ravinder Kaur admitted in appellant no.1-Hospital on 14.09.2004 for the operation of kidney stones and the doctors of appellant no.1-hospital asked for arraigning two bottles of blood from respondent no.6 and accordingly, two bottles of blood were arranged. The operation of the wife of respondent no.1 conducted on 18.09.2004 for Cholecystectomy by way of open surgery and one bottle was transfused and there was no reaction of that transfusion, which proves that the blood matched with the blood group of the wife of respondent no.1 and there was no complication or reaction. The second blood bottle was kept in appellant no.1-hospital, but it was not properly preserved, as there was no deep freezer or proper arrangement of safe storage of blood in the appellant-hospital. This Is clear from the reply of the appellant no. 1-hospital to the Para 8-C of the complaint In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant the reply was ‘wrong and denied’ and some of the facts pleaded in Para-8 of the complaint were denied for want of knowledge. There was no specific denial, nor was it reiterated that there is deep freezer or proper arrangement of proper storage of blood in appellant no.1-hospital. The second blood bottle was in the custody of appellant no. 1-hospital and on 21. 09. 2004, the second blood transfusion was carried out and within five minutes of the transfusion of blood, the wife of respondent no.1 felt back pain, shivering, palpitation etc. and it was due to the wrong transfusion of blood and blood reaction. On 22.09.2004, the said patient developed Jaundice, breathlessness and fall in Blood Pressure and appellant no.1-hospital referred the patient to C.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana. As per the Medical Summary Ex.C-11 recorded on 22.09.2004 by the doctors of respondent no.5-C.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana, it was observed as follows:-
“This lady had open cholecystectomy on 18.09.2004 from ESI hospital (for chronic cholecystitis and cholelithiasis). She remained well for 2 days after that when she was transfused blood on 21.09.2004, patient developed severe back pain 5 minutes after starting transfusion followed by shi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
