O DEVPAL Vs. WESLEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by O. Devpal (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 328/2003 in favour of Dr. Wesley, Director of Arogyavaram Medical Centre and D. James. Incharge Assistant. Arogyavaram Medical Centre hereinafter referred to as "Respondent Nos. 1 and 2" respectively.

(2.) The facts of the case according to the Petitioner are that his wife, C. Padmavathi who had complaints of severe menstrual bleeding was advised to undergo hysterectomy by Respondent No. 1 in April, 1997 and got herself admitted in Respondent No. 1's hospital on 7.5.1997. Since, she was anaemic(with Hamoglobin count of 5 mg.), she was advised blood transfusion prior to the surgery. Petitioner purchased 6 bottles of blood from Respondent No. 2 for this purpose. Patient was operated on 25.5.1997 and after the operation, she suffered from high fever which persisted right up to the time that she was discharged on 12.6.1997. As per the discharge certificate, Respondent No. 1 had diagnosed that the patient was suffering from Typhoid and she was given treatment with required medicines for 10 days. After discharge, the condition of the patient deteriorated and she was admitted to Mary Lott Lyles Hospital where her blood was tested and as per that hospital, she was diagnosed as being positive for Hepatitis B. She ultimately died on 1.8.1997. According to the Petitioner, the death occurred because the blood purchased from Respondents and transfused to the patient was contaminated because of which she got infected with Hepatitis B. In fact, the Respondents were aware of these facts and knowing that she had contracted a fatal disease through blood transfusion, quickly discharged her on 12.6.1997. There was, thus, obvious dereliction of duty and medical negligence on the part of both Respondents since they took no precautions to test the blood to ensure that it was safe and fit for transfusion. Being aggrieved. Petitioner sent a legal notice to the Respondents calling upon them to pay Rs. 3,30,000 to the Petitioner. Since, they refused to pay the amount, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District forum on grounds of deficiency in service and medical negligence and requested that Respondents be directed jointly and severally to pay the Petitioner Rs. 3,30,000 and also litigation costs and any other relief as deemed appropriate.

(3.) Respondents while admitting that the patient was admitted to their hospital and after medical tests, was advised to undergo Hysterectomy, have also stated that since she had severe Anaemia with a Haemoglobin count of 5 mg., she was required to undertake a series of blood transfusions to increase her Haemoglobin count before the surgery. The Petitioner accordingly purchased blood from their authorized blood bank which had been collected from blood donors after following stringent safety guidelines to ensure that it was not contaminated. The patient successfully underwent the blood transfusions as well as the Hysterectomy. However, on 5.6.1997, she developed fever and tested positive for Typhoid for which she was also successfully treated. On 12.6.1997 her general condition had improved and she got herself discharged on her own. According to the Respondents, if the blood had been infected; there would have been complications right from the time of the first blood transfusion which was not the case. It appears that the patient might have contracted the infection after her discharge and died perhaps due to lack of proper treatment at the Mary Lott Lyles Hospital where she was admitted. Respondents also questioned the diagnosis of Hepatitis B made by the Mary Lott Lyles Hospital since according to them the above said hospital did not in 1997 have the required laboratory and technical facilities to detect and diagnose cases of Hepatitis B. The complaint according to Respondents was falsely made because the Petitioner whose son is an employee of the Respondents hospital also wanted his other son appointed in the hospital which was not done by the Respondents.