T.HAREENDRAN NAIR vs P.ASHOKAN

THE case of the complainant is that his wife was admitted to the Span Hospital on 19/10/90 due to gynec problems and had undergone an operation on 23/10/90. For the purpose of the operation four bottles of blood were needed. Besides the blood donated by the complainant and his friends Vinod Kumar and Sivankutty Nair, one more bottle of blood was needed and that was purchased on 23/10/90 from Superior Blood Bank run by the opposite party, by paying Rs. 200/-.

THE blood supplied by the complainant and his friends Vinod Kumar and Sivankutty Nair was tested at Blood Bank Transfusion Service, Kumarapuram run by Dr. Rao, a retired Associate professor of Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum and was certified that the blood donors were ''non reactive''. After the operation Valsala Kumari was discharged from Span Hospital on 1/11/90. She was again admitted in the Span Hospital on 7/2/91 and on examination it was found that she was suffering from Viral Hepatitis. THErefore she was referred to Medical College Hospital and she was there under the treatment of Dr. Shenoy. It was revealed that she got this Viral Hepatitis through blood transfusion. On 18/2/91 she was admitted to Cosmopolitan Hospital for better treatment and on 6/3/91 she was discharged from there completely cured. The allegation of the complainant was that the blood purchased from Superior Blood Bank of opposite party contatined the virus of Viral Hepatitis and because of that his wife got that disease. Because of that the complainant had to spend a huge amount for the treatment of his wife and suffered a lot of tension and mental agony. It was also alleged that this was caused due to the negligence of the opposite party.

In order to save the life of his wife he had to spend more than Rs, 25000/- towards mendicines, treatment, room rent etc. Hence he filed this complaint before this Commission claiming a compensation of Rs, 1,25,000/- out which Rs. 25000/- is for the expenses of treatment and Rs.1,00,000/- is for mental agony suffered and difficulty and inconvenience caused.

THE opposite party filed his version denying the allegations contained in the complaint and stating that on 23/10/90 one unit of blood was purchased by the complainant, that Smt. Valsala Kumari was given blood even after 23/10/90, that Dr. Vamen Rao who is doing a business in selling blood is interested in certifying that the blood donors are non-reactive, that the certificate is no value and the contents therein was not admitted, that the donor K. Sivarajan Vadasserry, Nagarcoil, whose blood was sold to the complainant is also free from any ailment, and that at the time when the blood was sold, it was free from any Hepatitis Virus. THE blood was donated by him on 22.10.90. Before and after that date the same donor has donated blood at Sri. Chitra Medical Centre to the opposite party and it was free from any Virus. At the time when the blood was donated the opposite party has conducted all tests and was satisfied that the same is free from any Virus. THE allegation of the complainant that Dr. T.K. Shenoy has certified mat Smt. Valsala Kumari was affected by Viral Hepatitis due to blood transfusion was not correct. It was not certified by Dr. Shenoy that the blood sold by the opposite party was the cause of ailment. It was further contended that ailment caused to Smt. Valsala Kumari was not due to the blood donated by the opposite party, but due to some other reasons, that the opposite party is a licence holder under Drugs Control and System of Medicines Act and maintaining registers, that periodical inspections conducted by the officers and they were also satisfied by the performance of the opposite party, that there is no negligence or laches on the part of the opposite party in collecting and storing the blood and that the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The complainant and the opposite party appeared before us through their Counsel. Both the parties adducted oral as well as documentary evidences. Three witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant as PW1 to PW3. The complainant himself was examined as PW1. Dr. Shenoy was examined as PW2 and Vinod Kumar T.S. was examined as PW3. 9 documents were produced by the complainant and were marked as Exbts P1 to P9. Five witnesses were examined by the opposite party. Dr. M. Narendranathan was examined as RW1, Dr. Susan Koshy, of Span Hospital as RW2, Dr. A. Nr Kannu of Span Hospital as RW3, Sivararan as RW4 ard Dr. P.Ashokan as RW5. The documents produced by the opposite party were marked as Exbt. R1 to R3.

THE following points arise for our consideration: (1) Whether the blood purchased from the opposite party, contained the Virus of Viral Hepatitis ?. (2) Whether the wife of the complainant caught Viral Hepatitis through blood transfusion of blood supplied by the opposite party ? (3) If so, what are the reliefs to which the complainant is entitled? (4) What will be the order as to costs?

The 1st question to be decided is whether the blood supplied by the Superior Blood Bank to the complainant contained Virus of Hepatitis B. It is alleged by the complainant that his wife caught Viral Hepatitis due to the transfusion of contaminated blood purchased from the Superior Blood Bank run by the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that on 23/10/90 his wife had undergone an operation and she was given 4 bottles of blood and that among the four bottles of blood one bottle of blood was purchased from the opposite party. According to the complainant that bottle of blood contained Virus of Hepatitis B. Exbt P1, the receipt dated 23/10/90 issued by the Superior Blood Bank proves that he had purchased blood from the opposite party.

THE other three bottles of blood were donated by the complainant, his brother and one of his relatives. THEir blood was tested and certified by Dr. Vamana Rao, a retired Associate professor of Medical College, Trivandrum and the certificate issued by him is marked as Exbt P2. Exbt P2 dated 23/10/90 stated that Mr. Hareendran Nair, Mr. G. Sivan Kutty Nair and Mr T.S. Vinod Kumar had donated their blood voluntarily for the patient, Mrs. Valasala of Span Hospital, and that the blood donated by them is Aids Virus free and HBS Ag. non reactive. Thus it is clear from Exbt P2 that the blood donated by Mr. Hareendran Nair, Mr, C. Sivan Kutty Nair and Mr. T.S. Vinod Kumar did not contain any Virus of Hepatitis-B.

THE opposite party produced photo copies of the relevant, pages of the Donor Register and Issue Register of Superior Blood Bank, Trivandrum. THE Donor Register revealed that on 22/10/90 K. Sivarajan, 39, Kalpadi THEruva Vadasserry, Nagarcoil had donated blood and the number is 282. THE issue register revealed that on 23.10.90 number 282 xO'' positive blood was issued and the recipient was Valsala Kumari, Span Hospital. Further RW4 Sivarajan deposed that on 22/10/90 he donated blood to Superior Blood Bank. Thus it is established that the donor of the blood purchased from the opposite party is Sivarajan. Exbt R1 dated 26/10/93 is a certificate issued by the Administrative Officer of Sri. Chitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Seience and Technology in which it was stated that blood doner named K. Sivarajan, 38 years Assistant Engineer of blood group O positive donated blood for patient T. Ramachandran at Sri. Chitra Blood Bank on 28/11/89 and that as per their records he was negative for Hepatitis-B Surface Antigon done by RPHA method at the time of donation. Exbt R3 which included the laboratary report of Department of Gastroentology Medical College, Trivandrum dated 14/10/93 also shows that Sivarajan is negative for HBs Ag (Hepatitis-B Surface Antigon). It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant that these documents are not sufficient to prove that Sivarajan was negative for HBs Ag on 23/10/90, on the day on which the blood was donated to the wife of the complainant. We do not see any merit in this contention. It is the complainant who alleged that the blood purchased from the opposite party contained virus of Hepatitis and therefore the onus of proving that fact lies on the complainant.

Dr. K.G. Shenoy, Professor of Gastroenterology Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum was examined as PW2. Dr. Shenoy deposed that he had examined Valsala Kumari and that when she was brought to him she was suffering from jaundice. He futher deposed as under. "Blood transfusion given at least six weeks prior to the jaundice, one of the causes is transfusion related to Hepatitis. Of these, virus-B is an important cause. This person had Surface Antegon, (HBs Ag +Ve) when she came to me. So, I have strongly presumed that this person was suffering from Hepatitis based on blood transfusion". Therefore we cannot rule out the possibility of contacting Hepatitis-B to the patient through injection. But it is not established by the complainant that the spread of the virus Hepatitis-B to his wife was not through injection. More over, it was also stated by RW1 Dr. Narendranathan that a person who has virus, but does not have a symptom of the disease is called a carrier and that when a person becomes weak it is a theory that the symptoms come out. He also stated that a carrier can develop Hepatitis due to other viruses. Therefore the possibility of the wife of the complainant being a carrier also cannot be ruled out. RW2, Dr. Susan Koshy stated that she had not conducted any test to find out whether Valsala Kumari was a carrier or not. Further , Dr. Susan Koshy who treated her at Span Hospital gave evidence that blood transfusion was done in her presence and that they usually give blood transfusion only after verfication. (Blood group etc) No conclusive evidence is produced to show that Valsala Kumari was not a carrier."

IN the circumstances it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that the wife of the complainant contacted virus of Hepatitis-B through blood transfusion. Even if we assume that she contacted the disease through blood transfusion no authentic proof to establish that it is through the blood purchased from the opposite party she contacted Jaundice. It is for the complainant to establish that his wife contacted the disease thought the transfusion of blood purchased from the opposite party. IN the circumstances we are not in a position to hold that the wife of the complainant caught Hepatitis-B through transfusion of blood purchased from the opposite party. Pw2 also deposed thus, "Hepatitis-B can be spread to a patient by a number of ways. (1) Multiple blood transfusions which have not been screened before transfusion. (2) Needles which have been infected by the Virus. i.e, Needles which have not been sterilized properly (Reusable Needles.) (3) Sexual transmission of one of the partners suffering from Hepatitis".

HIS testimony also showed that he came to know the history of blood transfusion from the reference letter Exbt P7. Thus the evidence of PW2 showed that the virus Hepatitis-B can be spread to a person through multiple blood transfusion, infected needles (injection) and sexual transmission and that as Valsala Kumari had blood transfusion at least 8 weeks prior to jaundice he presumed that she contracted jaundice through blood transfusion. We feel that the evidence of PW2 is not sufficient to establish that the wife of the complainant caught jaundice through blood transfusion. "Further, RW1, the expert witness Dr. M. Narendranathan, professor and Head, Department of Gastroenterology, Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum also deposed thus, "Five types of viruses A,B,C,D and E can cause Hepatits. A&E spread by contaminated water B, C&D are transmitted by vertical (mother to child), person to person and by injection and transfusion of blood".

Thus, from the evidence of PW2 and RW1 it can be been that Hipatitis-B can be spread to a patient by injection i.e. through needles which have not been sterilized. Foregoing discussion would show that the complaint is devoid of any merit. Hence we dismiss the complaint. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Complaint dismissed.