K. HARI vs MINERVA CIRCLE BLOOD BANK

THE facts in this case are as follows: THE complainant was admitted to O.P. 2 Sri Krishna Sevashrama Hospital, Jayanagar on 11.12.1996 for check up for ulcer. On 12.12.1996 O.P. 2 hospital revealed the presence of deodinal ulcer and advised the complainant to have 3 bottles of drips and 2 bottles of ''O'' positive blood as the haemoglobin level was below normal. THE blood group of the complainant is ''O'' positive. On the advice of the doctor in O.P. 2 Hospital 2 bottles of blood were transfused into the complainant''s body on 12.12.1996 which was supplied by O.P. 1. THE complainant has produced receipts for having purchased the 2 bottles of blood of ''O'' positive which are marked as Exs. C8 and C9. After tranfusion of the blood the blood of the complainant was got tested and found further decline in the haemoglobin level. According to the complainant prior to the transfusion of the blood he was not suffering from hepatitis-B. On examination on 8.3.1997 at Anand Clinic-chem Laboratory found that the complainant was contacted with hepatitis-B (HBs Ag). THE report of Anand Institute of Laboratory Medicine is produced and marked as Ex. C5. It is further stated in the affidavit filed by the complainant that he had lost 6-8 kgs in weight and had spent lot of money towards clinical tests, medicines, doctors fees and he has also suffered mental agony and physical suffering due to the negligence of O.Ps. 1 and 2.

O.P. 1 has filed his version praying for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complainant himself is doubtful of his claims and the complainant has filed the present complaint only to blackmail and harass O.P. 1. O.P. 2 has not disputed the treatment and transfusion of the blood into the body of the complainant. The case of O.P. 2 is that the hospital does not have a Blood Bank of its own and it depends on outside authorized Blood Banks to supply blood to its patients and has also stated that transfusion of the blood was started only after the necessary tests.

The complainant and O.Ps. have filed their affidavits in support of their case and they were also subjected to cross-examination.

THE complainant in his affidavit has stated that he was made to suffer hepatitis B due to the transfusion of the blood which was not subjected for test by O.P. 1 before supplying the same to O.P. 2 hospital. O.P. 2 in his affidavit has stated that the complainant developed serum hepatitis. THE blood report Ex. C5 also discloses that the complainant had HBsAg (Australia Antigen) positive. It is in evidence that the complainant was not suffering from the said disease prior to the transfusion of the blood. It is not the case of O.Ps. that the complainant has contacted with the said disease due to any other reasons. It is in the evidence of O.P. 2 that the blood supplied by O.P. 1 was transfused to the patient at 3.00 p.m. on 12.12.1996. He has also deposed in the cross-examination what are the tests to be done in order to rule out the possibilities of (1) Hepatitis-B, (2) Hepatitis-C, (3) HIV 1 and 2, (4) Malarial parasites. Now the question is whether O.P. 1 has conducted the above tests to rule out the above said diseases before selling the blood. One Sri Ramesh Babu is the proprietor of O.P. 1. In his cross-examination he admits the sale of blood from his Blood Bank and he also admits the said blood was transfused to the complainant by O.P. 2 Hospital. In the cross-examination though he states that his Blood Bank is licensed he has not produced any document to show that it is a licensed Blood Bank. THE educational qualification of proprietor of O.P. 1 is PUC. From this it is seen that he is not technically sound enough to test human blood. In his cross-examination he admits that he does not have any knowledge about the receipt and the preservation of the blood donated by donors and he does not know how to assess the fitness of the blood. He has deposed that the doctors in his Blood Bank take care of the tests and other things. He does not even know the name of the donor whose blood was given to the complainant. He further says that there are about 6-7 employees in his Blood Bank and he does not know who collected and tested the blood which was given to the complainant. He says that he maintains records about the blood donation. But he has not produced any records before this Commission. From this evidence it is seen that he does not know the tests and other things. He has not filed the affidavit of any of the doctors or the technicians who are working in his Blood Bank to show that the blood that was supplied was subjected to any of the tests that are required to be done before transfusion. O.P. 2 admits that the complainant has developed Hepatitis-B after the transfusion of the blood, but he says that it is the duty doctor who transfused the blood to the body of the complainant and not by himself. It is not known who is the duty doctor who transfused the blood. But one thing is clear that the Blood Bank is expected to conduct necessary tests to rule out the possibilities of the diseases referred to above before selling the blood. But O.P. 1 who supplied the blood has not produced any evidence to show that the blood that was supplied was subjected to any of the tests. Further he is also not qualified since his qualification is PUC i.e., 10+2. No doctor or a technician as observed earlier has filed any affidavit by way of evidence in support of the case of O.P. 1. Normally before transfusing the blood to a human body it must undergo several tests. In the instant case since O.P. 1 has not furnished any material to show that he has tested the blood as required, we are of the considered view that the transfusion of the blood supplied by O.P. 1 to the complainant is the cause for the complainant to suffer Hepatitis-B. Hence we hold that O.P. 1 is negligent in not taking proper care which is expected of in supplying the blood after thorough test as required in the medical field and also due to the deficiency in service in not supplying the matching blood free from all complaints whatsoever, he is to be directed to pay damages not only the amount which the complainant had spent, but also for mental agony and hardship.

THE complainant in his complaint has stated that he had spent Rs. 16,520/- which includes the price of the blood and the amount spent for clinical tests, medicines and treatment, conveyance expenses. In addition as stated earlier the complainant is also entitled for damages towards mental agony and hardship. Hence in our view taking these facts into consideration awarding a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- as damages would meet the ends of justice. In the result, we pass the following. ORDER THE complaint is allowed. O.P. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realisation. O.P. 1 is also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs in this complaint to the complainant. Complaint allowed with costs.