M CHINNAIYAN Vs. SRI GOKULAM HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, which had dismissed his complaint, the complainant (husband of the deceased) has filed this appeal before us. The dispute in this case falls in narrow compass i.e. whether transfusion of two units of blood to the complainants wife in the post-operative period in Dec. 1990 could result in full blown AIDS in mid, June, 1994. Briefly stated facts of the case are as under :

(2.) Smt. R. Lalitha while taking treatment for abdominal pain at Gokulam Hospital (1st opposite party) before the State Commission was advised to undergo hysterectomy, which was performed by Dr. P. Chellammal, Gynaecologist in Dec. 1990. She was transfused two units of blood in the post-operative period in that hospital which was allegedly procured from Queen Marys Clinical Laboratory, which is the second opposite party before the State Commission. In mid-1994 the patient developed recurrent loose motion, weight loss, respiratory infection and difficulty in swallowing, for which a blood test was done by the second opposite party which showed that HIV antibodies were present. Therefore she was referred to YRG Centre for AIDS Research and Education, wherein ELISA test was done in June 1994 which confirmed that complainants wife was infected with HIV. She underwent medical treatment at YRG Centre. In July 1995, complainants wife developed left sided hemiparesis, oral candidiasis and pulmonary tuberculosis. She was hospitalized at CSI Kalyani General Hospital, Madras in July 1995. As she became unconscious, a CT Scan was done and where the disease was diagnosed as glioma of the brain, for which she was admitted in Raju Hospital at Madras on 12.8.1995 where she died on 16.8.1995. Case of the appellant :

(3.) In late 1990 R. Lalitha the complainant suffered from bleeding of uterus and was admitted to R 1 - Sri Gokulam Hospital wherein hysterectomy was performed on 21.2.1990. Subsequent to the operation, two units of blood was transfused to the patient which was brought from R 2 - Queen Marys Clinical Laboratory which did not conduct any test to satisfy itself that it was free from infection like HIV, etc. The hospital authorities (R1) also did not cross check whether there is a certificate in this regard. The treating doctor should satisfy himself that the blood is free from infection which she did not do. In June 1994 when the patient suffered from multiple diseases for which she did not have immunity, blood was tested and found to be HIV+. This gap of 31/2 years is categorized in medical texts as "Aid Symptomatic period". The blood was obtained by the first opposite party from the second opposite partys laboratory. But for the uterine problem the complainants wife had no other illness. In mid-1994 she developed several problems. The complainant had paid the first and second opposite parties the surgery costs, post-operative care cost as well as the cost of the blood. The second opposite party which supplied the blood had not tested the blood to ensure that the blood was free from the deadly HIV. Any blood bank/laboratory supplying blood is duty-bound to ensure that the blood supplied is free from HIV and other infections. The second opposite party had failed to carry out the test required to ensure that the blood was not infected. The blood supplied by the second opposite party to the first opposite party for transfusion had HIV antibodies. The first opposite party also owed a duty to the patient to ensure that the blood which it was transfusing her was free from HIV/ AIDS. There was thus a gross and patent negligence on the part of both the opposite parties while transfusing the blood with the result that the complainants wife was infected with HIV by the transfusion of HIV contaminated blood. The complainants wife lost her life on account of this negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.