Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3200
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Beerappa Methre – Appellant
Versus
M/s Manipal Hospitals & Ors. – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. NC/CC/290/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MS. SHWETA KAPOOR
For the Respondents: MR. G.N. SHENOY, MR. P.K. SETH, MS. ALANA MOHAMMED, MR. ADITYA KUMAR
No medical negligence was established where the complainant, already immunocompromised, alleged HCV infection due to dialysis, as causation was not definitively proven.
Headnote:This matter arises under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 concerning a complaint of medical negligence brought by a complainant diagnosed with renal failure. The facts show the complainant received dialysis on a machine designated for hepatitis C patients despite being previously tested negative for the virus. The court found no established negligence from the hospital or involved medical staff, emphasizing adherence to medical protocols and the complainant's pre-existing health conditions that made him vulnerable to infections. The main issue was whether the allocation of the dialysis machine caused the subsequent HCV infection. The court determined the link between the alleged negligence and the infection was not conclusively established. Thus, the complaint was dismissed without finding fault with the hospital's practices.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the patient's condition and the initial dialysis incident. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of defendants' arguments and their denials regarding negligence. (Para 3) |
| 3. examination of claims, evidence, and the court's response. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's assessment of the evidence and conclusion on negligence. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
ORDER
PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
1. The present complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 has been filed by the complainant Sri Beerappa Mhethre against the opposite parties – hospital, doctor and dialysis staff alleging medical negligence against them, whereby complainant acquired infection of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) due to wrong and negligent dialysis on 06.08.2012 on a dialysis machine meant exclusively for HCV positive patients when he in fact had no HCV infection and the infected dialysis machine caused HCV infection to him as was evident from a blood report dated 08.08.2012 wherein he was detected HCV positive.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant, a mechanical engineer, at the young age of 27 years, was diagnosed with advanced renal failure in May 2011 at Ashwini Sahakari Hospital, Sholapur and was advised to get transplantation of kidneys. He approached OP-1 and was admitted at its ICU, and they began dialysis on 04.2.2012. OP-2 is the incharge nephrologist while OP-3 is the Dialysis incharge. After the discharge on 09.02.2011, the Complainant continued dialysis at the OP-1 hospital 4 times a week as recommended by OP-2. Prior to his admission at OP-1 hospital, complainant got himself tested for all relevant infections and the results reflected that he was hepatitis free. The Complainant's blood test dated 02.02.2012 (before getting admitted at OP 1) shows a negative result for HCV RNA PCR (Hepatitis C). The complainant got tested for Hepatitis A-E once again as part of a routine test on 14.3.2012 and was once again tested negative. The Complainant's dialysis thereafter continued and OP-3 was responsible for allocating dialysis machines to the patient after filling up a form each time.
2.2 The controversial incident in question occurred on 06.08.2012 when complainant came for his routine dialysis and he overheard Dr. Veerabhadra Gupta questioning his technicians as to why the complainant was put on a machine meant for HCV positive patients. Complainant was shocked to know that he was being dialyzed on such a machine whereas he was uninfected and had tested negative for HCV. The very fact that there is a machine segregated for HCV positive patients would show that such machine ought to be maintained only for HCV positive patients and patients who are HCV negative are to be away from it. Complainant was never diagnosed as HCV positive prior to taking dialysis on 06.08.2012 at OP-1 hospital and he was under shock and surprise when his blood report conducted by OP-1 on 08.08.2012 reflected him as being HCV positive. Complainant then got himself tested on 08.08.2012, 11.08.2012 and 17.08.2012 from three different labs which showed that HCV was detected in his system. When he confronted the OP- 2 doctor with an email on 02.09.2012, he received a reply from OP-2 that HCV is a common problem in many people and OP-1 hospital cannot be blamed for the complainant testing positive for HCV. OP-2 in his email dated 03.09.2012 even suggested that the said virus is in a dormant state in the body of every human being. OP-2, instead of being sympathetic to the complainant, accused him of having contacted the virus from external source other than the machines of the hospital and also refused to accept responsibility for the complainant to having been infected by deadly virus. Complainant had registered his name with the concerned authorities for finding a donor for kidney transplantation. But as a result of infection, he had no other option but to withdraw his name. As per the complainant, getting infected with HCV positive is l
