State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Subhash Chand vs Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital Mansa & ... on 14 June, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
1)
First Appeal No.53 of 2022
Date of Institution : 27.01.2022
Date of Reserve : 22.05.2024
Date of Decision : 14.06.2024
Subhash Chand, aged about 59 years, son of Om Parkash,
resident of Aggarwal Street, Water Works Road, Mansa, Tehsil and
District Mansa.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Mansa, Water Works Road,
Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa.
2. Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh.
3. Chief Secretary, Punjab Govt. Health & Family Welfare
Department, Chandigarh.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
2)
First Appeal No.120 of 2022
Date of Institution : 18.02.2022
Date of Reserve : 22.05.2024
Date of Decision : 14.06.2024
1. Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital Mansa, Water Works Road
Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa.
2. Director, Health and Family Welfare Punjab, Chandigarh.
First Appeal No 53 of 2022 2
3. Chief Secretary, Punjab Government, Health and Family
Welfare Department, Mansa.
.....Appellants/Opposite parties
Versus
Subhash Chand son of Om Parkash, resident of Aggarwal Street,
Water Works Road, Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 30.11.2021 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Mansa.
Quorum:-
Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.Kiran Sibal, Member Present (F.A. No.53 of 2022):-
For the appellant : Sh.Krishan Kanha, Advocate For the respondents : Sh.H.S.Mann, Advocate HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This order will dispose of the above noted two appeals, which have been preferred against the same order dated 30.11.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa, by both the parties whereby the complaint filed by the complainant-Subhash Chand, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act'), was partly allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay the First Appeal No 53 of 2022 3 compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant by modifying its earlier order dated 11.02.2020.
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
2. Brief stated facts of the case are that in November 2015, the complainant suffered from 'Dengue' disease and got admitted in Civil Hospital, Mansa on 02.12.2015 and remained there till 06.12.2015. Requisite fee of Rs.120/- for admission was deposited against receipt No.1149 dated 02.12.2015 and also spent Rs.200/-, against receipt No.48 dated 02.12.2015 and Rs.90/- towards bed charges, vide receipt No.21 dated 06.12.2015. Treatment was done by Dr.Harmandeep Singh Chahal and during treatment the TLC/ DTC was reported 'decreased' and on the recommendation of the said doctor two blood units bearing No.4656 and 4666 for Rs.600/- were arranged from Blood Bank of Civil Hospital, Mansa and transfused to him. Thereafter, Dr.Harmandeep Singh Chahal discharged the complainant from hospital. After 3-4 months from discharge, the complainant felt difficulties in his health and again contacted with Dr.Harmandeep Singh Chahal and got admitted there. During checking Dr.Chahal found that the complainant is suffering from disease Hepatitis -C. After investigation regarding the origin of disease, the complainant found that during the earlier treatment on 02.12.2015, one blood unit was transfused to him by the hospital, vide Unit No.4666 was found to be Hepatitis-C positive. The staff of the hospital carelessly and negligently First Appeal No 53 of 2022 4 transfused the blood of Hepatitis -C to him. On noticing their mistake and with a fear of exposure, staff changed the unit No.4666 in their documents to Unit No.4661. This unit No.4661 was also transfused to one another patient Radha Rani of Amrit Nursing Home on 16.12.2015, which clearly shows that one blood unit having the same unit number cannot be transfused to two different persons. It is alleged that opposite parties are playing with the health of public and now the treatment of Hepatitis-C disease of the complainant is regularly going on since then, which has no permanent treatment. The complainant has to take medicine of the same till his last breath and this all happened due to the negligence of the opposite parties and till date the complainant has already spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- on his treatment despite that the condition of the complainant is down day by day. The complainant also moved several applications before the officers to take action against them and to pay him amount of compensation but of no use. The inquiries were conducted and found that opposite parties were negligent in rendering their services to the patients. A legal notice was also served upon the opposite parties through his counsel on 17.07.2018, wherein compensation amount was demanded but of no use. Feeling aggrieved with the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant was compelled to file the complaint against them before the District Commission for seeking relief of Rs.19,00,000/- i.e. on account of expenses incurred during treatment Rs.10,00,000/-; risk of life of complainant First Appeal No 53 of 2022 5 Rs.2,00,000/-, special diet Rs.1,00,000/-, Loss of physical health Rs.2,00,000/-, Bed rest for at least one year Rs.1,00,000/-, harassment and mental agony of Rs.2,50,000/- and litigation expenses Rs.50,000/-.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their joint reply taking legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable and is barred by limitation. The complainant is not a consumer of the answering opposite parties as per the provisions of the CP Act. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties and the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file complaint against the opposite parties. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant was admitted in Civil Hospital, Mansa in the year 2015. It is submitted that best treatment was given to the complainant by the concerned doctors and was discharged after recovered from the disease. The opposite parties are government and statutory body and the requisite fees were got from the complainant as prescribed by the Government. Further submitted that it cannot be established that the complainant got disease Hepatitis-C from where and when and what is the reason of it. Rest all the averments as averred by the complainant in his complaint were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions before the District Commission and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the complaint was partly allowed, vide impugned order dated 30.11.2021.
First Appeal No 53 of 2022 6
5. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant for modification of the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 and to allow the appeal by granting the reliefs as claimed in the original complaint.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case as well as written arguments filed by the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the same.
7. Both the complainant and opposite parties assailed the impugned order of the District Commission through F.A.No.53 of 2022 and FA No.120 of 2022. The appellant/complainant comes in the appeal on the ground that he acquired the Hepatitis -C disease due to the negligence of the respondents as they transfused with the infected blood without testing and that was pure negligence on behalf of the respondents/opposite parties and the compensation granted by the District Commission to him is not adequate in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled "Chairman Railway Board Vs. Chandrima Das" decided on 28.01.2000 and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case titled "Ms.Shefali Bhargava Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, I(2003) CPJ 216 NC.
Whereas, in the other appeal filed by the respondents/opposite parties has challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the appellant/complainant was admitted in emergency and as the platelets was very low and the blood was First Appeal No 53 of 2022 7 issued by the Blood Bank at the last moment after having the rapid kit test, however, ELISA could not be done and the blood which was transfused was collected from the Blood Donation Camp and because of shortage of time ELISA test was not possible. It is further alleged that since the respondents/opposite parties is a Government Undertaking Institute and they give the treatment to the patients free of cost and no charges were claimed from the appellant/complainant and this is also held in the enquiry conducted by ADC, Mansa so there is no negligence on the part of the respondents/opposite parties, rather they saved the life of the appellant/complainant by giving him emergency treatment.
8. Undisputed facts of the case are that after having suffered from the disease dengue, the appellant/complainant was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Mansa on 02.12.2015 for treatment and remained admitted in the hospital till 06.12.2015, vide Ex.C-1. During the treatment, two units of blood No.4656 & 4661, vide Ex.C-12, was transfused to the appellant/complainant and payment of Rs.600/- was received from the appellant/complainant. After 3-4 months of the said treatment for dengue, the appellant/complainant was not keeping good health and he contacted the concerned doctor namely Dr. Harmandeep Singh Chahal. During his treatment, it was diagnosed that the appellant/complainant was suffering from Hepatitis -C. On the investigation, it was found that the treatment which was given on 02.12.2015, one unit of blood was contaminated with Hepatitis C, which was carelessly First Appeal No 53 of 2022 8 transfused to the appellant/complainant. After this, the appellant/ complainant made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, who marked the enquiry to ADC and discreet enquiry was conducted and gave his following observations:
"The allegation of causing the disease of "Kala Pelia" to Sh.Subhash Chand S/o Om Prakash R/o Mansa due to the Blood Bag No.4666 [(which was HCV(+)] stands proved against the concerned employees of the Blood Bank. Upon checking the record, it is found that it was written in the Indoor File Record of Sh.Subhash Chand that PRP No.4656, 4666 were issued to him. In the Blood Issue Register, 4666 was changed to 4661 by cutting & overwriting which shows wrong intention on the part of the concerned staff. It was submitted by the employees of Blood Bank that Blood Unit No.4666 was discarded on 03.12.2015 because it was HCV(+) and Sh.Subhash Chand was given the blood bags bearing No.4656 & 4661.
It is important to mention here that three components (i.e. Red Blood Cells, Plasma & Platelets) are prepared from one blood sample. On 02.12.2015, Platelets from Blood Unit No.4666 were given to Sh.Subhash Chand after performing the Rapid Test. But, on dated 03.12.2015, when the remaining components of Blood Unit No.4666 were tested by performing Elisa Test then they were found HCV(+) and the same were discarded from the hospital and entry was made in the register. Upon checking the Indoor File of the patient, it is found that it bears Labels 4656 & 4661. These labels are put on the blood bags at the time of issuing of blood to the patients, these labels are pasted in the file of the patient for the purpose of record.
Other Indoor Files were also checked during the investigation and it was found that these labels were mostly First Appeal No 53 of 2022 9 torn but the label of 4661 seemed to be completely new which showed that the label 4661 was pasted after removing the label of 4666. Therefore, the allegations against Sh.Vijay Kumar (MLT) Blood Bank, Civil Hospital Mansa (who was on duty at that time) stands proved and Pathologist Smt. Kanwalpreet Kaur Brar, being incharge of Blood Bank Mansa was also equally negligent. Further, it is also a serious matter to temper the record to cover up the error. It could not be ascertained by whom the records were tempered...."
9. The enquiry report of the Assistant Commissioner, clearly shows that the disease Hepatitis -C was transmitted to the appellant/ complainant through the blood which was given to him during his treatment for dengue and the plea of the respondents/ opposite parties that since they are Government Hospital and the blood was transfused to the appellant / complainant during emergency. So, there is no negligence on their part, which is totally devoid of any merit because the blood was procured by the respondents/ opposite parties and was purchased by the appellant/ complainant by giving Rs.600/- in good faith and it was the bounden duty of the respondents/opposite parties to have a proper test done before transfusing of the blood which they missed under the garb of emergency treatment.
10. From the facts, which are admitted, it is clear that blood which was transfused by the respondents/opposite parties was infected with Hepatitis -C and they have negligently transmitted this disease into the body of the appellant/complainant and the First Appeal No 53 of 2022 10 respondents/opposite parties are very much liable to pay the compensation as granted by the District Commission.
11. On the other hand, we do not find any force in the argument of the appellant/complainant that the compensation awarded by the District Commission is less with regard to the disease is concerned. It cannot be denied that the respondents/opposite parties are Government Undertaking concern and the blood was transfused under the emergency condition, accordingly the compensation, as awarded by the District Commission is appropriate in view of the gravity of suffering faced by the appellant/complainant and there is no scope to enhance the compensation anymore.
12. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the appellant/complainant and the same is hereby dismissed, being devoid of merits and the order of the District Commission is upheld.
F.A. No.120 of 2022
13. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa, (in short 'District Commission'), whereby the appellants/opposite parties were directed to pay the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,00,000/- as granted earlier.
14. In view of the discussions held in F.A. No.53 of 2022, it cannot be said that the appellants/opposite parties were not negligent while delivering their duty in such like a government First Appeal No 53 of 2022 11 institution, therefore, we are not inclined to accept the appeal of the appellants/opposite parties. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits and the order of the District Commission is upheld.
15. In F.A. No.120 of 2022, the appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The concerned party may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount to the extent of his/their entitlement and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law.
16. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the court cases.
(HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER June 14th ,2024 parmod