LAWS(NCD)-2002-12-38

SHEFALI BHARGAVA Vs. INDRAPRASTHA APPOLLO HOSPITAL

Decided On December 16, 2002
SHEFALI BHARGAVA Appellant
V/S
INDRAPRASTHA APPOLLO HOSPITAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complant is filed by the complainant Miss Shefali Bhargava, a monor aged 17 years, through her father and natural guardian, Mr. D.C. Bhargava, alleging medical negligence on the part of Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, respondent No. 1 and Dr. Pratap Reddy, Chairman of the hospital (Respondent No. 2). At a later stage Dr. S. Chandra, Senior Consultant of the same hospital has been added as respondent No. 3 During the pendency of this case, Miss Shefali Bhargava attained majority and impleaded herself as the complainant. The complainant's case is that the respondent hospital gave her transfusion of improperly tested blood products from its Blood Bank thereby giving her an infection of a very serious disease Hepatitis C virus which has ruined her life and the treatment of which is difficult and very expensive.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows : 2.1. The complainant Shefali Bhargava was 17 years and 10 months old when she was admitted in the Apollo Hospital, New Delhi on the evening of 22nd June, 1997, with a complaint of 1040F high malarial fever. The respondent No. 3 who examined her got her blood tests done, which showed a Platelet count of 59,000 (as against the normal range of 1,50,000). He thought that the complainant needs to be given a transfusion of blood Platelets and advised her mother to get her blood tested so that her blood could be used for transfusion. On 23rd at about 11.00 a.m. the complainant was however given 5 units of blood Platelet concentrate prepared in the Blood Bank from five different donors. Ultrasound of the complainant was done on 24th June which showed the liver to be normal. On 25th her blood was tested for HCV (Hepatitis C) anti-bodies and HB antigens and both were found to be negative. The fever subsided and on 26th June the complainant was discharged from the hospital, with the advice that she should continue using the prescribed anti-malarial drugs. During her stay in the hospital, her blood was tested for liver enzyme tests, and the parameters were normal (consistent with the anti-malarial drugs being given). She was advised to carry out these tests again on the 4th July and with these results she again saw respondent No. 3 Dr. S. Chandra, on 5th July who found the parameters normal (her SGPT count was 57) and advised her to continue taking the anti-malarial drugs for a period of 3 months. He also advised her to repeat the blood tests for HB and SGPT after a period of one month. 2.2. The complainant avers that she continued taking the drugs for the prescribed 3 months period. She however, did not get the tests done after one month as advised by respondent No. 3 These tests however were got done at Dr. Lal's Lab on 13th September, i.e. after 2 months. The test showed that an extremely abnormal result for SGPT (Liver Enzyme Test). The normal SGPT should have been in the range of 0-31, but the test showed 1334, showing that her liver got diseased. Perturbed by this, the complainant was got examined at Dr. Kataria's Lab on 17.9.1997; at LNJP Hospital on 18.9.1997 and at Dr. Lal's Pathology Lab on 22.9.1997. These tests, which included a biopsy of her liver, revealed that she got an acute attack of Hepatitis C infection. She is convinced that infection came from the use of improperly tested and stale blood products (Platelet Concentrates) given to her at the Apollo Hospital. The normal gestation period for Hepatitis C virus is 8 to 12 weeks, and the virus revealed itself in the 11th week after the gestation. Further medical experts confirm that the severity of the infection in this case is such that the infection must have come only from the improperly tested blood products given to her. She has been under treatment in LNJB Hospital for Hepatitis C and has already spent a huge amount on her treatment. She gave a legal notice to responent No. 1 on 10.10.1997 and thereafter filed the complaint before us alleging gross negligence on the part of the respondents and claiming :

(3.) The complainant's case essentially is that :