The NCDRC, in one of its recent ruling has held the hospital liable for 'medical negligence' after a pateint was deceased due to transfusion of wrong amount of blood in his body.
Two judge bench of Justice R.K. Agarwal, and DR. S.M. Kantikar, Member passed the order in which they dwelled on the responsibility of hospital while treating a patient.
Brief Facts of the Case:
In the case of M/S. SAMAD HOSPITAL & ORS V. S. MUHAMMED BASHEER & ORS, victims are a married couple A.K. nazeer and his wife Sajeena who underwent an infertility treatment at samad hospital. Sajeena was diagonised with fibroid uterus and subsequently went under a laparoscopic surgery , after the surgery Dr. Sathi M. Pillai (a doctor from hospital staff) asked for a blood transfusion, immediately post which she developed blood transfusion reactions and complications which was alleged to have happened due to mismatch of blood type, i.e (given B+ blood instead of O+ blood). The reactions could not be contained in her body and she subsequently succumbed to her infections.
Aggrieved by this negligence, the victims filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission who partly allowed the complaint and directed the hospital to pay compensation of ₹9,33,000/- with 15000 cost to the complainants. Aggrieved by the said order of state commission , hospital filed an appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Submission of Parties
Ld. Counsel for hospital negated giving mismatched blood transfusion to the patient and submitted that the patient developed complications and a very severe condition DIC which was beyond their curative power and anticipation. Counsel further implicated towards the towards the fault of blood bank in issuance of wrong blood.
The state commission examined a few witnesses and found out that the laparoscopic surgery was done at the hospital and DR. Sathi m. Pillai ordered for the blood transfusion and within half an hour of transfusion the patient developed complications.
While examining the witness, state commission observed that hospital had failed to follow the standard procedures. It further noted that the hospital did not established proper
communications with the blood bank and that the severe condition was developed on account of transfusion reaction .
Subsequently the above commission directed the hospital and concerned party to pay ₹9,33,000 and ₹15000 costs as compensation to the victims who suffered due to medical
negligence.
NCDRC's Observations:
In the appeal against the order of state commission , national consumer disputes redressal commission enlightened and focussed on the issues in the matter that:
• Whether the transfusion of wrong blood took place, if yes then who will be held liable , hospital or the blood bank?
• Whether the incident was a transfusion reaction or the the severe condition DIC?
While scrutinising the above issues ,the redressal commission observed that endorsement of Dr. Valentina (one of the witnesses) proves that the blood transfusion took place and that it was the duty of hospital to prove negligence on blood bank’s part but they failed to prove the same, thereby making hospital staff liable for negligence.
The redressal commission further stated that from the evidence provided by witnesses and reports/notes submitted before them it was clear that the severe condition of DIC renal failure is a complication lead by the wrongful transfusion reaction.
The commission referred to the supreme court judgment in case of Postgraduate Institute of Medial Education and Research Chandigarh vs. Jaspal Singh & Others and said that the present case is a pure case of medical negligence by hospital staff and that their incompetence in performing their duty contributed to the victim’s death.
The commission while discussing the compensation said that state commission erred on specifying the amount to be paid to the victims and enhanced the amount by putting reliance on supreme court judgment in case of Arun Kumar Manglik v Chirayu Health & Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and in Lata Wadhwa v State of Bihar.
The appeal was dismissed with directions to the hospital staff to pay 20 lakhs compensation to the parents of deceased victim and an amount of 1 lakh towards the cost of litigation .
CASE TITILE: M/S. SAMAD HOSPITAL & ORS V. S. MUHAMMED BASHEER & ORS.
CASE DETAILS: FIRST APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2012
CORAM: Justice R.K. Agarwal, and DR. S.M. Kantikar ,Member
Read Oder @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
