Transfusion | Cardio-Thoracic
Surgeon | Dentist
| Emergency Care | Ent Surgeon | Hospital/Nursing Home | Neurologist |
| Obstetric Gynaecology | Orthopaedics |
Sunita Vasant Heganawar & Ors.v.Miraj Medical Center
1994 (2) CPJ 544: 1994 (3) CPR 214 (Mah SCDRC)
Smt. Sunita was operated for correction of atrial septal defect and mitral stenosis. During surgery, patients BP came down below the danger level and it became necessary to give her four units of blood. The first three units were tested for HIV infection, but the fourth unit had to be given despite not being tested for HIV due to urgency of the patients condition. The blood in the fourth unit was later found to be HIV positive, due to which Smt. Sunita became infected with AIDS virus, and later on her husband and her small child born after the operation were afflicted with AIDS. On the question of maintainability of the complaint it was held that as the hospital is a charitable hospital run by the Christian Mission Aid and as no consideration was paid, the complainant is not a consumer and provisions of the C.P.Act are not attracted. The question of negligence therefore was not dealt with. On compassionate grounds the hospital offered to provide free treatment to Mrs. Sunita, her husband and child and also offered employment to her husband. In view of this voluntary offer, the court held that in the event the opposite party accepts this offer this hospital is directed to adhere to its offer, despite dismissal of this complaint.
V.Chitralekha v. Director and Superintendent I.O.G. & Ors.
1998(1) CPJ 124 (TN SCDRC)
The complainant underwent hysterectomy and one unit of blood was transfused. It was alleged that because of the transfusion of unscreened blood she developed malaria and Hepatitis-B. The State Commission dismissed the appeal because;
(I) the complainant did not prove that she was negative for Hepatitis-B virus infection before surgery;
(ii) the infection of Hepatitis-B occurred before because of its known long incubation period;
(iii) Possibility of acquiring malaria even after discharge from the hospital;
(iv) the donor whose blood was transfused was again tested and found to be negative for both.
SMN Consumer Protection Council & Anr v Ganga Hospital & Anr
1994(3) CPJ 237 (TN SCDRC)
Patient underwent hysterectomy during which 2 bottles of blood had to be transfused. Ten days after the operation the patient took ill and her blood tested Hepatitis B positive. It was alleged that the infection occurred because the blood was transfused without rechecking and rescreening for infection for infection of Hepatitis B. The blood was supplied by a blood bank in a well known institution and screened for Hepatitis B , etc. A certificate was issued along with the 2 bottles. Also it is inadvisable to recheck and rescreen the blood for fear of contamination. The patient developed Hepatitis B 10 days after the transfusion while the incubation period for the Hepatitis B virus is between 50-160 days . Also it is known that the Hepatitis B virus may occur through other means . The commission held that when a disease can occur through other causes as well it is for the complainant to prove that the particular act of the opposite party was the proximate cause of his ailment.
T.Hareendran Nair v Dr P.Ashokan
1995(1) CPJ 220 (Kerala SCDRC)
The complainant’s wife had undergone an operation , during which four units of blood were needed . Three units were donated by relatives and one unit was purchased from a blood bank of the opposite party .It was alleged that the bottle was contaminated and resulted in Hepatitis B.
The state commission held that it was not proved that the complainant’s wife was not a carrier of Hepatitis B .Also there are a number of ways how Hepatitis B can spread. Hence it cannot be proved that the infection occured due to the blood pbtained from the opposite party.