S K ABDUL SUKUR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in C.D. Case No. 22 of 1990 on the file of the State Commission, Orissa has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated October 11,1990 passed by the State Commission declining to go into the merits of the complaint petition on the ground that the competent forum to adjudicate upon the dispute is only the Civil Court.

(2.) THE complaints wife Kaiurun Nisha was admitted into the Gynaecology and Obstrictics Department of S.C.B. Medical College Hospital on May 9,1989. On the same day the Professor of Gynaecology under whose treatment the patient was, advised the complainant that it was necessary to give a blood transfusion to the patient. The blood grouping test was performed by the concerned department of the hospital and a requisition slip along with blood sample of the patient was handed over to the complainant at about 10 A.M. on the same day (9.5.1989) in order to enable him to obtain one bottle of 'O' positive group blood from Orissa Red Cross Blood Bank, Cuttack. The complainant thereafter approached the Blood Bank and requested for the supply of one bottle of 'O' positive group blood. Since the Blood Bank offered to supply the blood only by way of exchange for blood to be donated by the complainant, the complainant donated his blood to the Blood Bank after .ecessary tests were performed and other formalities complied with. Thereafter the complainant was supplied with one bottle of blood bearing a label wherein it was inscribed 'No. 1390, Group 'O' positive', after collecting from the complainant Rs. 45/ - by way of service charges. Prior to their making supply of the blood, the Blood Bank had conducted cross matching test as between the blood sample of the patient sent by the hospital and the sample of the blood to be supplied and a cross matching slip was also given to the complainant for being handed over to the hospital authorities. The complainant delivered the bottle of blood together with the cross matching slip to the hospital on May 10,1989.

(3.) THE State Commission disposed of the complaint by a summary order which reads : 'Both members participated. Heard learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr. S.K. Padhi, Advocate appearing for Red Cross Blood Bank. After hearing learned Counsel for both parties, we are satisfied that oral evidence and Cross -examination is necessary for the purpose of proving the impersonation on one side and tampering the record on the other side. Accordingly, competent forum in this case would be Civil Court, where complaint, if so, advised may approach for his redressal. Accordingly, complaint is disposed of.