DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

Present:            Sri Manoranjan Hazra,President.

Rajalaxmi Das,Member.

C.C.No.315/2008

1.         Alapana Chatterjee,

W/o: Late Rashikendranath Chatterjee,

Of Manik Ghose Bazar,Bhandari Sahi,

PO:Chandini Chowk,PS:Purighat,

Town/Dist.Cuttack.

2.         Rajib Chatterjee,

S/o: Late Rashikendranath Chatterjee,

Of Manik Ghose Bazar,Bhandari Sahi,

PO:Chandini Chowk,PS:Purighat,

Town/Dist.Cuttack.                                                     … Complainants.

Vrs.

1.         Udayabhanu Clinic, represented through its

Proprietor Dr, Ajit Kumar Bose,

At:Gopal Jew Lane,Choudhury Bazar,

PO:Buxibazar,PS:Purighat,

Town/Dist:Cuttack.

2.         Dr. Ajit Kumar Bose,

At:Gopal Jew Lane,Choudhury Bazar,

PO:Buxibazar,PS:Purighat,

Town/Dist:Cuttack.

3.         Dr. Maheswar Sahoo,

Res. of Bhima Ice Factory Road,

Near Bombay Hotel,

At/PO:College Square,

PS:Malgodown,Town/Dist:Cuttack.

4.                  Director,Central Red Cross,Blood Bank,

Infront of S.C.B.Medical Colelge Hospital,

Mangalabag,Town/Dist:Cuttack.                           … Opposite Parties.

JUDGMENT DT.31.12.09

Sri Manoranjan Hazra,President

Alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties, the present complaint is filed.

1.                  The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that complainant No.1 is the wife and complainant No.2 is the son of deceased Rashikendranath Chatterjee.  As Late Rasikendranath was suffering from ulcer in his right cheek, apprehending that the same may lead to cancer growth, deceased consulted Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 in the Nursinghome (Opposite Party No.1) belonging to Opposite Party No.2 on 15.09.06.  After due consultation both Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 advised the deceased to go for a general surgery and the date was fixed to 17.9.06 at 9.30 A.M.  On the first date of consultation i.e. on 15.9.06 both Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 advised the deceased to have blood test at Opposite Party No.1.  Accordingly deceased gave blood to Opposite Party No.1 for test.  The prescription granted by Opposite Party No.3 is filed as Annex-1.  On 16.9.06 the deceased took admission in the Nursing home (O.P.1 ) at 10 A.M.  and thereafter both Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 asked the complainants to arrange 3 bags of blood for the purpose of operation to be conducted on 17.9.06.  As per the request of the complainants, blood sample was drawn from the deceased which was handed over to the complainants along with requisition slip for collecting blood from Blood Bank,Cuttack.  The complainant no.2 went to the Blood Bank (O.P.1) and the Blood Bank authority after verification of the sample as well as requisition slip told the complainant no.2 that the blood sample given by the Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 did not match with the requisition slip given by Opposite Party No.1.  The same was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.2 but Opposite Party No.2 asked complainant no.2 to bring the blood as per the sample drawn from the deceased.  The Opposite Party No.4 the Blood Bank of Cuttack after group testing of the sample supplied two bags of blood of A+ vide Annex-2 which was handed over to Opposite Party No.2.  In the morning on 17.9.06 Opposite Party No.2 again asked complainants to bring further two bags of blood as the two bags those were brought previously may be insufficient for the entire operation and Opposite Party No.2 handed over the blood sample as well as requisition letter to the complainant no.2 who went to Opposite Party No.4 and Opposite Party No.4 after having done a group testing issued two bags of O positive blood to Opposite Party No.2 under Ananex-3.  While handing over the two bags of blood as per Annex-3, the Blood Bank Authority brought it to the notice of the complainant no.2 that two groups of blood can not be administered to a single person.  By the time the complainant no.2 brought the second phase of blood, the Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 had already transfused two bottles of A+ in the body of the deceased and at about 2.00 P.M. the complainants were informed by the Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 that the condition of the deceased was serious.  The complainants after waiting till 9.30 A.M. at 17.9.06 could know from Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 that the deceased have already died and granted the death certificate under Annex-5.  Though the complainants demanded for bed head ticket from the Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 to know about the cause of death of the deceased, the same was not given to them.  So on the net day i.e. on 18.9.06 the complainant no.2 lodged FIR against Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 at Purighat P.S,Cuttack and accordingly P.S.Case No.49 dt.18.9.06 was registered corresponding to G.R.Case No.1168 of 2006 which is pending before the S.D.J.M,Cuttack.  According to the complainants due to wrong transfusion of blood to the body of the deceased the deceased died which amounts to criminal negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 amounting to deficiency in service. Therefore the complainants filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for death, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation amounting to Rs.11,10,000/-.

2.                  Opposite Parties. 1 & 2 filed the joint version alleging interalia that there is no cause of action to file the present complaint.  The complainants are not consumers as defined U/S.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act  as such the  complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.  It is further stated that the death of the patient on 17.9.06 was not due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties while transfusing the wrong blood group during operation on the other hand they have acted with due diligence with utmost care,caution,skill and treated the patient.  It is also stated that the deceased was suffering from ulcer i.e. right cheek and apprehending that the same may lead to cancer, consulted Opposite Party No.3 in his chamber who advised the deceased to undergo operation immediately on 17.9.06 in order to save his life.  Accordingly the deceased was admitted in the Clinic (Opposite Party No.1) on 16.9.06.  As it was a major surgery, and after explaining the complainants as well as the deceased regarding the risk and danger involved in such surgery, the deceased gave his consent to undergo operation in the hands of Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 in the Nursinghome(Opposite Party No.1).  On 16.0.06 the complainants were advised to bring two bags of blood for transfusion during the course of operation and accordingly the requisition slip was given as well as sample blood drawn from the deceased for collection of blood from Central Redcross Blood Bank,Cuttack(Opposite Party No.4).  While sending the requisition of blood, these Opposite Parties never did the blood grouping of the deceased either on 16.9.06 or on 17.9.06 as such duty is of Opposite Party No.4.  The Opposite Party No.4 after testing the blood sample handed over two bags of A+ blood to complainant no.2 who in turn handed over the same to Opposite Party No.1 for transfusion to the said patient.  On 17.9.06 during course of operation as the Opposite Party No.3 required two more bags of blood, again Opposite Party No.2 handed over requisition slip to the complainant no.2 along with blood sample for collection of the blood from Opposite Party No.4.  After bringing such blood for the second time, the blood transfusion was made to the deceased in good faith to save his life.  The mistake in blood grouping and cross matching test if any found was made by Opposite Party No.4 as such Opposite Parties. 1 to 3 can not be held liable.  It is further stated that in absence of any pleading in the complaint petition about the earning of the deceased and the quantum of his contribution to the family, the complainants are not entitled to get any amount towards compensation from the Opposite Parties.  Accordingly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                  Opposite Party No.3 filed its separate version.  We find there is no major difference between the stand taken by Opposite Parties. 1 & 2 in one side and Opposite Party No.3 on the other side.  On the other hand he being a specialist in cancer treatment, he applied his skill and ability to operate the ulcer to his right cheek.  He has also denied that neither himself nor Opposite Parties. 1 & 2 conducted the blood test of the deceased and sent the same for collection of blood for two times from Opposite Party No.4.  On the other hand the two bags of blood that was supplied to the complainant no.2 by Opposite Party No.4 were due to the mistake committed by Opposite Party No.4.  Besides that the deceased was not only suffering from ulcer in the cheek but he was also suffering from Diabetes.  So at the time of operation, the deceased showed signs of Craniological problem and lastly hut down and though the deceased died was not for any fault of his, as such prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                  The Opposite Party No.4 filed separate version admitting therein that when the complainant no.2 for the first time came for blood on verification of the sample as well as the requisition slip, it was found that the blood sample that was given did not match with the requisition slip, accordingly he advised the complainant no.2, not to take blood, but on the request of the complainant no.2 after having grouping test, supplied two bags of blood of A+ vide receipt no.14965 and 14966 dt.16.9.06.  Similarly on the next day when the complainant no.2 came for the further two bags of blood, after having group test, supplied two bags of blood of O+ under receipt nos.15014 and 15015 dt.17.9.06.  In the last it is stated that the present complaint is not maintainable against Opposite Party No.4 as no relief have been claimed against it.

5.                  From the pleadings of the parties, documentary evidence produced, the admitted facts as found are as follows:

(a)    The deceased Rashikendranath Chatterjee was having ulcer in his right cheek as well as he was suffering from other ailments like diabetes etc for which on 15.9.06 he consulted Opposite Party No.3 in his chamber as per Ananex-1.

(b)   Opposite Party No.3 advised him to have different tests as he was to undergo operation of his right cheek immediately as there was apprehension of cancer growth to his right cheek.

(c)    Opposite Party No.3 advised the deceased to get himself admitted in Opposite Party No.1 which is owned by Opposite Party No.2 on 16.9.06 and the date of operation was fixed to 176.9.06.

(d)   The deceased took admission in Opposite Party No.1 on 16.9.06 and Opposite Party No.2 handed over requisition slip for blood to be collected from Opposite Party No.4 along with sample of blood collected from the deceased.

(e)    Complainant no.2 brought two bags of A+ blood from Opposite Party No.4 on 16.9.06.

(f)     During course of operation on 17.9.06 those two bags of blood was transfused to the body of the deceased.

(g)    During course of such operation another requisition for two more bags of blood along with blood sample was given to the complainant no.2 and two bags O+ of blood was brought from Opposite Party No.4..

(h)    During course of operation the deceased died.

6.                  In view of the afore noted admitted facts, Mr. Pattnaik the learned counsel for the complainants contended that the two requisition slips those were handed over to complainant no.2 on 16th and 17th  June of 2006 respectively, the Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 had mentioned the blood group as A+ and O+ respectively.  As deceased had blood group of O+ , when blood group of A+ was transfused to his body that caused the death of the deceased.  Therefore the question remains whether in both the requisitions i.e. of 16.9.06 Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 had mentioned the blood group as A+ and subsequently on the next day as O+.  It is the case of the Opposite Party No.4 that after receiving the requisition slip form Opposite Party No.1 it supplied blood of two different groups to the complainant no.2 as per the requisition given by Opposite Party No.1 on two dates.  Admittedly Opposite Party No.4 has not produced those two requisition slips which were received from complainant no.2 basing on which blood bags were supplied to the complainant no.2.  Similarly when the complainant have specifically alleged against Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 that in the requisition slips blood group was mentioned, the reason best known to the complainants as to why they did not take pain to call for those two requisitions slips from the custody of Opposite Party No.4.  Therefore non-production of those two slips by Opposite Party No.4 and complainant having not called for them from Opposite Party No.4, it is difficult on our part to come to a conclusion that in the slip dt.16.9.06, the Opposite Parties 2 & 3 had mentioned the blood group as A positive whereas in the slip dt.17.9.06 they mentioned blood group as O positive.

7.                  Even conceding for the sake of argument it is accepted that the Opposite Parties. 2 & 3 had mentioned the blood groups on both the slips, the next question arises what is the responsibility of Opposite Party No.4 who is the authority to supply blood for transfusion to a patient.

8.                  The Drugs & Cosmetics Rules 1945 as well the guidelines formulated by National Aids Control Organization(Annex-A) for supply of blood, discloses that Opposite Party No.4 is to maintain a blood donor as well as blood stock register wherein it should be disclosed the date of bleeding, name of the donor,age,blood group etc.  Similarly Opposite Party No.4 while issuing the blood bags must issue cross matching report of the blood of the patient along with the blood bag.  Similarly before issuing blood, Opposite Party No.4 should have blood grouping and cross matching so also to do Cell and Serum grouping.  Similarly after conducting all such tests, it should be recorded and signed by the technician and at the same time the concerned medical officer should supervise the technicians work of storage, but in the case in hand there is nothing from the side of Opposite Party No.4 to show that such things have been performed by Opposite Party No.4 before handing over two bags of blood on 16.9.06 and two bags on 17.9.06.  On the other hand from para-6 of the version of Opposite Party No.4 it is seen that it has simply verified the sample as well as the requisition letter on the first day and on the next day only did the grouping test.  This itself is sufficient to say that Opposite Party No.4 without maintaining proper procedure before supplying four bags of blood of two different groups have committed gross mistake which caused the death of the deceased.

9.                  In view of the above discussions and conclusions arrived at, we hold that the present complaint is devoid of any merits, as such stands dismissed.

Judgment pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of   December,2009 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

Member.                                                                                              President.