National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Deo Kumar Singh vs C.B.P. Sinha (Dr.) on 11 December, 2007
Equivalent citations: I(2008)CPJ205(NC)
ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1. This First Appeal is filed against the order dated 16.7.2004 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint Case No. 44/1997 dismissing the complaint alleging deficiency in service by the opposite party, Dr. C.B.P. Sinha. Hence, the complainant-Shri Deo Kumar Singh is in Appeal before us. Brief facts of the case are:
The appellant/complainant's wife Smt. Geeta Singh was examined by one Dr. (Smt.) Rekha Prasad at Patna on 24.9.1991 when she was found to be pregnant for two months. As Smt. Geeta Singh was complaining of pain in stomach, she was given some medicines and was asked to get the blood test done. Accordingly, the complainant took his wife to the opposite party, Mayur Laboratories for the blood test. The opposite party in its report of the same date, i.e., 24.9.1991 stated that Smt. Geeta Singh's blood group was Rh Positive A. In spite of treatment given by the attendant Dr. Rekha Prasad, on the basis of the blood test report, Smt. Geeta Singh was continued to have problems and she was advised to go in for the abortion. Accordingly, Smt. Geeta Singh aborted the child. Subsequently, she conceived again for a second time. Though she approached Dr. Rekha Prasad well in time and took complete bed rest, there was bleeding and she again had to be aborted. Smt. Geeta Singh conceived for the third time. She has been consulting Dr. Rekha Prasad right from the beginning, and, in spite of some complications, she somehow delivered a baby.
2. Smt. Geeta Singh conceived for the fourth time and because of the previous unhappy episodes, this time, she consulted another lady Doctor, Dr. (Smt.) Kiran Verma on 13.9.1997 who prescribed some blood tests.
3. The complainant got his wife's blood tested on the same day in Sarkar Laboratories, which gave a report dated 13.9.1997 stating that the blood group was RH AB OA Negative. This blood report was totally at variance with the previous report given by the opposite party as far as Rh factor is concerned. While report given by the opposite party on 24.9.1991 showed the RH factor as positive the subsequent report of 1997 given by Sarkar Laboratories showed the Rh factor as negative. It is a well established fact that the Rh factor remains permanent and does not change in a person.
4. The complainant alleged that after the second report came, Dr. Kiran Verma told him that all the previous complications were because of the first wrong blood report which showed the Rh factor as positive whereas, in reality, it was Rh Negative. The treatment given by the earlier Doctor was on the basis of wrong blood report and hence the reasons for the complications could not be properly assessed. Further, even the fourth pregnancy could not be saved because the correct blood report was obtained at a later stage, and there was a delay in her treatment, which was based on an incorrect blood report, and complications had already started. Hence, the complainant approached the Bihar State Commission claiming a compensation of Rs. 10 lakh from the opposite party for having given a false blood report on an important matter like the Rh factor which prevented Doctors from taking appropriate line of treatment.
5. The State Commission however dismissed the complaint on the grounds that when the two reports were different, the complainant should have obtained a third independent report and that there is nothing on record to show that any of the attending Doctors stated that the complications during the pregnancy resulting in three abortions were because of the wrong report regarding Rh factor, and on the ground that no expert opinion has been brought to prove that the wrong blood report has caused the complications.
Findings:
6. We have carefully gone through the case record and heard the arguments. We find that the State Commission has failed to take into account some of the evidence on record and totally misjudged the issue. The complainant has brought to our notice that the third blood report dated 13.9.2002 from a Pathological Laboratory, Kumar Janch Ghar, Patna showing the blood group of Geeta Singh as: Rh Negative. Thus, there is no doubt that the first report given by the opposite party that the blood group as: Rh positive is totally a wrong report.
7. Secondly, all standard medical text books show that the Rh factor plays an extremely important role during pregnancy. When a person has got an Rh factor, the reports are written as Rh Positive, and when a person does not have an Rh factor, the report shows: Rh-Negative. More than 85% of the people are Rh-Positive. The Rh factor does not affect the person's general health but it plays an extremely important role during pregnancy. A woman is at risk when she has a Negative Rh factor and specially when her husband has a Positive Rh factor. This combination can produce a child who has a positive Rh factor. In this particular case, it is on record that the child born from the hird pregnancy is Rh Positive. Medical literature shows that when the baby and the mother have separate blood system (mother with Rh Negative factor and baby with Rh Positive fetor), there is possibility that the blood from the baby can enter into the mother's blood. This can cause the mother to create anti-bodies against the Rh factor, thus treating an Rh-Positive baby like an intruder in her body. These anti-bodies will then attack the Rh Positive baby's blood causing breaking down the Red Blood Cells and anemia will develop. This is known as Hemolytic foetus. In several cases, this Hemolytic disease can cause illness, brain damage and even death of foetus. Hemolytic disease can be prevented by appropriate medication but only when the Rh factor of the mother is correctly known. It is, therefore, quite evident since they had before them a wrong blood report about the Rh factor.
8. An attempt has been made by the opposite party to argue that since the third pregnancy was successful, the alleged complications which resulted in the other abortions, cannot be linked to the alleged false blood report. It may be under fortuitous circumstance that the third baby survived in spite of some complications. But by no stretch of imagination can this be used as an argument that the wrong report about the Rh factor has not prevented the Doctors from administering an appropriate treatment for the first and second pregnancies.
9. Testing blood type and Rh factor are basic and fundamental aspects of blood test and Pathological Laboratories are required to be extremely careful since the wrong report can make the difference between life and death. Giving the report about these/actors in a casual manner has to be condemned since the Rh factor plays an extremely important role in the case of the pregnant woman.
10. There is no need to obtain any further expert opinion. It is a crystal clear case that there was total failure on the part of the opposite party in exercising adequate care in analysing the blood.
11. As far as the assessment of compensation is concerned, we find no relevant material on record, as to the basis on which the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 10 lakh before the State Commission.
In the absence of the grounds on which the claim of Rs. 10 lakh is made, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if a sum of Rs. 25,000 is granted towards compensation.
12. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed. The order of the State Commission is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards compensation to the complainant, within a period of two months from today, failing which the amount of Rs. 25,000 will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.