M.CHINNAIYAN vs SRI GOKULAM HOSPITAL

THE complainant''s wife R. Lalitha while taking treatment for abdominal pain in the 1st opposite party Sri Gokulam Hospital was advised to undergo hysterectomy. She underwent that operation in December, 1992. According to the complainant his wife was transfused 2 units of blood in the post operative period in that Hospital. THE blood was obtained from the 2nd opposite party Queen Mary''s Clinical Laboratory. Apart from the uterine problem, the complainant''s wife had no other illness. In mid 1994 she developed recurrent loose motion, weight loss, recurrent respiratory infection and difficulty in swallowing. For this a blood test as well as an Elisa Test were done. THE Elisa Test done by the 2nd opposite party showed that HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) antibodies were present. THE virus leads to the disease called "Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)". When it was found that the complainant''s wife had been infected with the AIDS virus, she was referred to the YRG Centre for AIDS Research and Education for confirmation whether she had been infected by a reliable test. This test was done in June, 1994 and it was confirmed that the complainant''s wife had HIV infected. Since then, she was under the care of YRG Centre and she was given medical treatment. In July, 1995, the complainant''s wife developed left sided hemiparesis, oral candidiasis, pulmonary tuberculosis and CMV retinitis. She was hospitalised in July, 1995 in CSI Kalyani General Hospital, Madras. She went unconscious. A CT Scan was done and it was diagnosed as glioma of the brain. She was admitted then in Raju Hospital at T. Nagar, Madras on 12.8.1995 and died on 16.8.1995.

THE YRG Centre opined that the infection namely the Pulmonary Tuberculosis, Oral candidiasis, CMV retinitis and gasteroenteritis were all related to the immuno suppressive effect of HIV. In other words all the diseases had attacked her body and the body''s immune system had been completely destroyed by the virus called Human Immunodeficiency Virus. She was infected with HIV only on account of the negligent manner in which the blood transfusion was done by the opposite parties after the hysterectomy surgery done in December, 1992. THE complainant had paid the 2nd opposite party charges for the blood and the 1st opposite party for the charges for their treatment and operation. THE 2nd opposite party who supplied the blood had not tested the blood to ensure that the blood was free from the deadly HIV, and the blood had contained HIV antibodies. THE 1st opposite party Hospital also had not ensured that the blood that was transfused was free from HIV/AIDS. THEre was thus gross and patent negligence on the part of the opposite parties in transfusing the blood which had been infected with HIV and that blood caused the death of the complainant''s wife. THE complainant and his wife had led a clean life and there was absolutely no other reason for getting HIV infection. It is well known that the persons who are infected with HIV develop complications subsequently. THE virus remain dormant in the body and strikes the body''s immune system later. THE period between the entry of the virus and onset of the disease could be several years depending on several factors. The complainant''s wife was working as Secondary Grade Teacher in the Government High School, and she was 51 years old at the time of her death. The last pay drawn by her was Rs. 1,850/- per month. She had more than 6 years of service left. Both herself and her family members had undergone untold mental agony and sufferings. On these grounds alleging deficiency in service on the part of both the opposite parties the complaint has been filed claiming compensation under different heads all totalling to Rs. 6,50,000/-.

The 1st opposite party in their written version would submit that the operation was performed on 29.12.1990. It is false to say that the blood was obtained from the 2nd opposite party by the 1st opposite party. The complainant was advised to secure blood from his relatives and friends but unfortunately none of the relatives and friends came forward to donate blood and the complainant himself had secured blood from the 2nd opposite party which is a Government Recognised Approved Blood Bank. It is not true to say that the blood was obtained from the 2nd opposite party by the 1st opposite party. They deny that negligently without proper test, the blood was transfused. They state that since the 2nd opposite party was a certified blood bank, the blood was not tested by the 1st opposite party before transfusion. There was no negligence on the part of this opposite party in transfusing the blood. It is not true to say that the blood transfused was infected with HIVAIDS virus. The compensation amounts claimed are highly excessive.

THE 2nd opposite party in their version contend that they were not aware that 2 units of blood was transfused to the complainant''s wife by the 1st opposite party. THEy deny that the blood tested said to have been transfused to the complainant''s wife was obtained from this opposite party. This opposite party never supplied blood to the 1st opposite party or the complainant any time from the year 1987, when the 2nd opposite party commenced its business. In fact it was this opposite party which detected HIV in the blood of the complainant''s wife on a reference from one Dr. Singaravelu. This opposite party deny the other allegations made in the complaint. The points that arise for consideration is whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in not testing the blood before transfusion and whether that blood had contained HIV. If so what reliefs can be granted to the complainant.

POINT: Insofar as the 1st opposite party Hospital is concerned, though it is alleged in the complaint that before transfusion of the blood they ought to have tested it for HIV, and that they did not do and this amounted to deficiency in service on their part, during the course of arguments it was conceded that since the blood had been obtained from the 2nd opposite party Blood Bank which had been approved by the Government, the 1st opposite party Hospital was not expected to do such test and therefore the 1st opposite party cannot be held that it was deficient in service. The main case of the complainant is against the 2nd opposite party only. According to the complainant the blood was obtained from the 2nd opposite party and that blood had contained HIV. But the 2nd opposite party deny that they supplied blood to the 1st opposite party or to the complainant. While it is the case of the complainant that the 1st opposite party had obtained blood from the 2nd opposite party, the 1st opposite party in their written version would contend that the complainant himself obtained blood from the 2nd opposite party and not they. This contradictory contention of the complainant and the 1st opposite party raises a grave doubt whether the blood had been obtained from the 2nd opposite party at all in the face of the contention of the 2nd opposite party that neither the 1st opposite party nor the complainant obtained blood from them. The complainant would however points out Ex. A18 blood test results which according to him had been obtained from the 1st opposite party and shows that the blood was obtained from the 2nd opposite party. But this document does not contain any signature of the 2nd opposite party and it is only a xerox copy and the original has not been filed and the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd opposite party would strongly deny that the 2nd opposite party ever issued such a document and he would contend that this document is a fabricated one. Therefore this Ex. A18 cannot be relied on. Further this document is only a blood test results and from this alone it cannot be said that 2 units of blood was supplied by the 2nd opposite party as alleged. No receipt for payment for blood supplied by the 2nd opposite party has been filed. Even if the blood had been supplied to the 1st opposite party, receipt therefor should have been obtained by the complainant from the 1st opposite party when he claims to have obtained other documents like blood test results from them. When it is mentioned in the complaint that blood was transfused post operatively, in Ex. A5 clinical notes it is mentioned that blood was transfused pre-operatively. This also tends to weaken the case of the complainant. Then, even if the blood obtained from the 2nd opposite party was transfused to the complainant''s wife, there is no reliable evidence or circumstance that would show that that blood contained HIV. It is the case of the complainant himself that when the blood was transfused in December, 1992, the HIV was detected after a lapse of about 11/2 years that was in June, 1994. In these circumstances, it cannot be definitely said that only from the blood transfused HIV had been transmitted and not because of any other reason, and in the complaint it is clearly stated that infection of HIV is due to a number of reasons. The complainant has not stated that his blood had been tested before the transfusion of blood to his wife and this also would show that it cannot be said that there was no possibility of transmission of HIV from the complainant sexually.

CONSIDERING thus we find it difficult to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of any of the opposite parties. In this view of the matter, the complaint has to be dismissed. We order accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.