Medicolegal

  
  





Blood
Transfusion

  

|
Anaesthesist
|
General
| Blood
T
ransfusion
| Cardio-Thoracic
Surgeon
 | Dentist

|


| Emergency
Care
| Ent Surge
on
|
Hospital/Nursing
Home
|
 Neurologist |

| Obstetric Gynaecology

|
Orthopaedics |

|
Ophthalmology

| Paediatricians |
Physician/General
Practitioner
|

|
Surgeon |

   

[
-: Cases in Doctor’s Favour :- ] – [
-: Cases in Patient’s Favour :- ]

 

  • 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, patient’s 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 patient’s 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.

      

    Complaint
    dismissed

      


  • 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.

     

    Complaint
    Dismissed

      

  



 

     

  
Medicolegal
  

  

Blood Transfusion
  

  • 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, patient’s 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 patient’s 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.
      
    Complaint dismissed
      

  • 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.
     
    Complaint Dismissed
      

  

 

By |2022-07-20T16:41:43+00:00July 20, 2022|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Medicolegal

About the Author: