Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Complainant was suffering anti-body tittering. Dr.Khadilkar raised inference that the OP KEM Hospital gave wrong report of first Child Archit. The study of Mrs.Medha's ICT with rising body titter and Archit's blood group as A-Rh positive, Dr.Khadilkar explained the seriousness in Medha's pregnancy to Medha and her in laws and said there is need to go early delivery of Medha in next two or three days to avoid danger to safety of the second Child.

6. Archit's blood group given by OP as A-Rh negative was wrong. The correct blood group of Archit was A-Rh positive. Hence when Mother's blood group was Rh negative and the first child was Rh positive, there is need to give Anti D injection to the Mother within 72 hours of her delivery. There was negligence in not giving the proper and correct treatment to Medha by OP KEM Hospital, Pune.

10. According to Shri Deshpande , the facts revealed that Archit's blood group detected as AB Rh Negative by the Op is an act of negligence and the omission of not giving Anti D injection within 72 hours of the first delivery of Medha were acts of negligence on the part of OP. The correct blood group of Archit was A Rh positive, while Mother Medha's blood group was AB Rh negative.

11. National Institute of Immunohemotology states that blood group of an individual remains the constant throughout his or her lifetime. Thus, it is submitted that the wrong committed by the OP in detecting the Blood group of Archit and his Mother was perpetuated into consequences at the second delivery of Medha resulted in mental anguish as child Harshada suffered hearing loss due to Rh incompatibility, Billirubin shown rising levels in Milligrams in Harshada Baby, and expenses of Rs.11,93,389 /- for operation for Cochlear implant occurred to the Complainant to treat Harshada at Hinduja Hospital apart from earlier expenses of caesarian operation at her second delivery for want of Anti D injection at proper time at the time of the first delivery.

12. In defence the learned counsel for OP contended that the Op maintains high standard of medical care and they are 103 year old, 600 beds Speciality Hospital in Pune run by distinguished NGO, Public Charitable Trust. It has various departments and reputed credit worthy Hospital with technologically advanced blood Bank. The OP Hospital is aware of the four groups of Blood as A, AB, B and O. In Rh (Rhesus) blood group system, there are three antigens C, D, E. The antigen is highly antigenic meaning thereby that it can cause problems in Patient during and after the blood transfusion. Depending upon presence or absence of antigens, Patient is labeled as D (Rh) Positive or D (Rh) Negative. If Positive person's blood is given to the negative reaction will set in immediately with serious consequences ranging from renal failure to death. In contrast, if blood of Rh negative person is given to Rh positive person, there will be no reaction. If Mother is Rh positive, it does not matter whether infant is Rh Positive or Rh negative as infant's health will not be impaired by this fact. Similarly, if Mother is Rh negative and infant is also Rh negative, then also there will be no adverse effect on the newborn's health. The problem only arises if the Mother is Rh negative and the newborn is Rh positive. Such pregnancies require special care whereby interalia, the Mother's blood is checked for sensitization by conducting Direct Coombs test on the newborn . The Coombs test detects antibodies against Rh antigen. The indirect Coombs test detects antibodies in the serum of Mother. It is the only test for determining whether a Mother whose blood group is Rh negative has been sensitized or not . The direct Coombs test detects antibodies in the neonatal red blood cells of the new born post delivery. It is only when indirect Coombs test on the Mother and the direct Coombs test on the newborn both negative, but the blood group of the newborn is Rh positive, then as per established medical procedure, the Mother has to receive the anti D injection within 72 hours of the delivery. However, where indirect Coombs test on the Mother and Direct Coombs test on the newborn are both negative and the newborn's blood group when tested at birth is found to be Rh negative, then as per established medical procedure prevalent , Mother was not required to be to be administered anti D injection after delivery. Our attention is drawn to document dated 8th April 2000 at Page 90 and 91 of the appeal paper book. Clinical findings states Rh positive Mother term baby whereas the document at page 90, states in box Diagnostics, that Rh negative Mother and blood group of the infant mentioned as AB negative and Direct Coombs test is negative.

13. Clinical finding is history of Patient as narrated by the Patient or relative of Patient taken down by Doctor for professional diagnosis. Then Doctor prescribes investigations and tests for exact diagnosis. Test report has to be distinguished which alone may show tested blood group. The OP Hospital was guided by the test report of the newborn's blood group and the negative result of the Direct Coombs test performed on the neonate's cord blood sample that the Mother is not sensitized i.e. anti Rh antibodies are not formed in the Mother. OP took into account that the indirect Coombs test dated 15 March 2000 tested as negative when pregnant Mother had visited the OP Hospital for antenatal care before her delivery on 8th April 2000. Direct Coombs test dated 8th April 2000 taken on the day of birth of the new born also tested negative. This established that Mother even after delivery had not been sensitized indicating the absence of any contradiction as argued by the Counsel for the Appellant. Thus there was no justification for the OP Hospital to administer the anti D injection to the Rh negative Mother, whose infant was Rh positive. It is also submitted that the Mother was not sensitized while in KEM Hospital, Pune after delivery of her first child Archit. However, in April 2004 when she was pregnant she was sensitized as per tests conducted by Sangli Hospital. Sangli Hospital or Doctors are not parties nor they sworn affidavits in support of the Complaint. It is not the Complainant's case that she disclosed obstetric history in the intervening 4 years, which is extremely significant. The delay of four years to obtain the report when Appellant went for second delivery is also remained unexplained. Hence, complainant has to be blamed for latches. Defence contentions in our view cannot be brushed aside or overlooked that there were probabilities of abortions of pregnancy during period of four years.