Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Government of India v. Master Akash
1. Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member - The Appellants challenged against the impugned Order dated 11.9.2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), whereby the Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakh holding liable for medical negligence.
2. For the convenience, the Parties are referred as placed in the Original Complaint filed before the State Commission.
3. The facts are that Master Akash the Complainant (Complaint filed through his mother), after birth, at the age of 3 days, was operated for the correction of diaphragmatic hernia on 13.6.1998. It was performed by Dr. Ajay Kumar, the Opposite Party No. 3 at Kalawati Saran Children Hospital (KSCH) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Opposite Party No. 2'). During operation, the baby was given blood transfusion twice as 50 ml and 100 ml on 13th and 16th June, 1998. The blood was brought from the Blood Bank at Smt. Sucheta Kriplani Hospital, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Opposite Party No. 4 - SSKH'). The baby was discharged on 23.6.1998.
4. Thereafter, Master Akash was brought to the hospital on 6.8.1998. It was diagnosed as
The court reaffirmed the necessity for strict adherence to blood transfusion regulations to prevent medical negligence while addressing HIV transmission risks.
Medical Negligence – Screening test for HIV non-reactive requires specific confirmation – No deficiency in service or medical negligence.
The court emphasizes the need for accountability and transparency in healthcare practices, especially regarding the adequacy of blood testing technologies.
Issue of blood - if once the patient got shifted to RSV hospital, it was mandatory to send fresh requisition form in the prescribed format from RSV Hospital. Thus, fresh blood samples of patient were....
The state has a constitutional obligation under Article 21 to ensure the right to life is protected by maintaining standards in medical care.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient medical evidence to establish medical negligence and the duty of care owed by medical professionals to their patient....
“Medical Negligence” - The omission on the part of the Hospital therefore to have the patient tested for H1N1 promptly would certainly be contrary to the requirements under the aforesaid Guidelines, ....
Medical practitioners are not liable for reasonable errors in judgment; negligence requires proof of failure to meet accepted standards of practice.
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
