1

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Smt.S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., President (FAC),
And
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Tuesday the 15th day of March, 2016
C.C.No.98/2012
Between:
G.Murali Krishna,
S/o G.Sreenivasulu,
H.No.70-108-18-10A,
Kallur-518 002, Kurnool.

COMPLAINANT
-Vs-

1. Dr. K.Raja Sekhar,

C.N. Hospitals,
Beside H.No.51-716A,
Birla Compound, B-Camp,
KURNOOL-518 002.
2. Dr.Y.Harikiran,
Anesthesist,
H.No.40-304-10,
Bhagyanagar Main Road,
Kurnool-518 004.
3. Viswabharathi Hospitals,
Represented by its Proprietor,
H.No.50-760-A4,
Gayathri Estate, Kurnool-518 002.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of

Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri.Syed Shafaqath
Hussain, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite parties 2 and 3
called absent and set exparte and for upon perusing the material papers on
record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt.S.Nazeerunnisa, President (FAC))
C.C. No. 98/2012
1.

This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of Consumer

Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties:(a)

To pay a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- towards compensation to the

complainant;

(b)
(c)

To pay costs of the complaint.

And
To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.

Contd.,

2.

The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant

wife by name Adilakshmi admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital for

delivery on 20.09.2011. On 22.09.2011 at 9.40 A.M., opposite party No.1
conducted Caesarean Operation with the assistance of opposite party No.2
Anesthesist. As the complainant was anemic opposite party No.1 has made
blood transfusion to the wife of complainant before conducting Caesarean.
After operation she developed heavy bleeding from vagina. On the same day
(i.e.,) 22.09.2011 again at 1.10 P.M. opposite party No.1 had done
hysterectomy to her with the help of opposite party No.2 and in the evening
shifted her to Viswabharathi Hospital opposite party No.3, without informing
to the complainant. On the advice of opposite party No.3, the complainant
procured 12 bottles of blood at cost of Rs.38,000/-. But on 23.09.2011 the
opposite party No.3 declared her dead due to DIC and issued Death
Certificate. Before joined in opposite party No.1 hospital her condition was
good, due to the negligence of opposite party No.1 by not taking care in
securing blood after proper testing and he had not done cross-matching test,
compatibility test, due to reaction of blood transfusion, the patient suffered
with DIC. Therefore opposite party No.1 is responsible for the death of wife
of complainant and opposite party No.2 had not observed the condition of
the patient at the time of giving Anesthesia and also not taken proper care
before or after the operation and thus opposite party No.2 also becomes
liable for her death. Opposite party No.1 in collusion with opposite party
No.3 shifted to the wife of complainant in opposite party No.3 hospital,
opposite party No.3 fully known the condition of patient unnecessarily made
a cause to spent Rs.38,000/- for getting 12 bottles of blood and he is equally
liable to the demise of the wife of complainant. The wife of complainant was
private employee and had drawing salary of Rs.12,000/- P.M., before her
death.

Due to the negligent attitude of opposite parties 1 to 3 the wife of

complainant died leaving two minor children and they became orphan. The
complainant requested to opposite party No.1 to pay the compensation but
the opposite party No.1 takled adamantly. The complainant got issued legal

Contd.,

notice to opposite parties on 17.02.2012.

Though the opposite parties

received the notice but they did not take any steps to pay the compensation.
Opposite parties 1 to 3 are negligent and it is clear deficiency of service on
the part of opposite parties and caused mental agony to the complainant.
Hence this complaint.

3.

Opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is

neither just nor maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and denied
the allegations levelled against him. It is submitted that the patient by name
Smt.Y.Adilakshmi was admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital with G2 PILI
with 9.00 M.A with anemia with mild PIH. At the time of admission all the
necessary investigations were done and opposite party No.1 requested her
attendant to arrange two bottles of A+Ve (Positive) compatible blood and it
was arranged from outside and one bottle was transfused pre operatively on
20.09.2011.

The condition of patient was good, again she reported on

21.09.2011 evening, she got labor pain on 22.09.2011 morning, because this
was a case of post Cesarean.

Opposite party No.1 had done Cesarean

Operation on 22.09.2011 morning after 2 hours of operation the patient

suddenly developed bleeding from Vagina heavily. Opposite party No.1 took
all the measures to control the bleeding and transfused one bottle of A+Ve
compatible blood. Opposite party advised the complainant to arrange four
bottles of A+Ve compatible blood and also suggested Hysterectomy Operation
to her, blood was arranged from outside by them. Opposite party No.1 done
Hysterectomy Operation with the consent of patient attendant and nearly
three bottles of A+Ve compatible blood was transfused. The opposite party
No.1 noticed that there was a wouzing of blood from the operation site and
fresh blood trickling from the drain, and opposite party suspected DIC in
this case. Therefore the patient was shifted to Viswabharathi Hospital with
the consent of her attendant of patient. They have done D.Dimer Test for
confirmation of DIC and the reported as positive. They have also taken all
medical measures to control the bleeading but in vain and patient died on

Contd.,

23.09.2011 due to DIC complication but not due to blood transfusion. The
opposite party No.1 is a M.D., in Obstetrics and Gynecology worked as a
Medical Officer and Assistant Professor of Gynecology in Kurnool Medical
College from 1987 to 2004. During the said period he got best Doctor award
for two times for conducting nearly 40,000 sterilization operation in the
District. The opposite party No.1 not responsible in any way for the death of
the complainant wife as this opposite party was not negligent in performing
the surgery and taking subsequent care. The alleged problem (DIC) of the
complainant cannot be attributed to any negligence on the part of opposite
party No.1. There was no postmortem done over the dead body of his wife.
There are no merits in the complaint it is filed only to make an unlawful
gain. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Inspite of notice served on opposite parties 2 and 3, opposite parties 2

and 3 did not choose either to appear before the Forum or to file written
version on behalf of them. Opposite parties 2 and 3 called absent and set
exparte.

4.

On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A11 are marked and sworn

affidavit of the complainant is filed. PW1 and PW2 examine on behalf of

complainant and Ex.X1 is marked. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1
is marked and sworn affidavits of the opposite party No.1 is filed.

5.

Both sides filed written arguments.

6.

The points that arise for consideration are:i.

Whether the opposite parties have rendered deficient service in

administering Medical treatment to the wife of complainant?

ii.

Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

iii.

To what relief?

Contd.,

7.

POINT No.1:- Admittedly on 20.09.2011 the wife of the complainant

Adilakshmi admitted in the hospital by name C.N. Hospital of opposite party

No.1 for delivery. The opposite party No.1 have made blood transfusion to
patient before conducting Caesarean.

On 22.09.2011 at 9.40 A.M., LSCS

was done with the Assistance of Anesthesist opposite party No.2. On the
same day at 1.10 P.M., opposite party No.1 done hysterectomy with the
Assistance of opposite party No.2.
pertaining to Adilakshmi.

Ex.A1 is the case sheet C.N. Hospital

when the condition was serious opposite party

No.1 shifted her to Viswabharathi Hospital. Ex.A2 is the photo copy of

Viswabharathi Blood Bank Compatibility Certificate No.7. Viswabharathi
Hospital Case Sheet is marked as Ex.X1 and its blood bank bill test receipt
and prescriptions are marked as Ex.A2 to Ex.A5. Ex.A6 is the photo copy of
Swaroop Medical Shop Medical Bills No.10. It is the case of the complainant
that the patient was shifted opposite party No.3 hospital without informing
to the complainant and on the advice of opposite party No.3 the complainant
procured 12 bottles of blood at cost of Rs.38,000/-. But on 23.09.2011 wife
of the complainant died due to negligence of opposite parties 1 to 3. Ex.A7 is
the photo copy of Death Certificate issued by Viswabharathi Hospital dated
12.10.2011. The news was published in Daily News Paper Andhra Jyothi on
25.09.2011 and Shakshi dated 21.12.2011. Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 are the photo
copy of News Papers cutting.

It is further case of complainant that the

opposite party No.1 without conducting the compatibility test or cross

matching test, the blood was transfused to his wife before surgery and after
surgery. Due to reaction of blood transfusion, she was suffered with DIC
Problem and the patient was died. Opposite party No.2 also not observe the
physical condition of patient and administered anesthesia and had not taken
proper care before and after LSCS. Opposite party No.3 is also in collusion
with opposite party No.1 and fully aware of the condition of a patient
unnecessarily cause to spent Rs.38,000/- for getting 12 bottles of blood,
later they declared her dead. Therefore all the three opposite parties are
responsible for the death of wife of complainant who is at the age of 29

Contd.,

years.

The complainant got issued legal notice to opposite parties to pay

compensation for their negligence. The office copy of legal notice is marked
as Ex.A10 dated 17.02.2011. Ex.A11 is the photo copy of reply notice given
by opposite party No.1 dated 14.04.2012.

The wife of complainant died

leaving two minor children due to negligent of opposite parties. Though the
complainant requested and issued legal notice to opposite part to pay the
compensation.

They did not pay the compensation.

As per the order of

District Medical and Health Officer, Kurnool a committee Dr.T.Dhanraj,

Dr.Y.Radhika and Dr.M.Janaki were appointed to enquire about the
maternity death of patient due to negligence of opposite party No.1. As per
the enquiry report the patient was admitted with full term pregnant on
20.09.2011 at 9.00 A.M., with in patient No.10121 in C.N. Hospital, Kurnool,
at the time of admission she was anemic with HB Percent level 6.4% grams,
Blood Group of A+Ve. She was given one bag of blood A+Ve on 20.09.2011
at 10.30 A.M. It was not identified the source from where they blood was
collected, no cross matching certificate or number is available. On
22.09.2011 at 9.40 A.M., operation of LSCS (Lower Segment Cesarean
Section) was done by

under spinal anesthesia by Dr.C.N.Rahasekhar, and

anesthetist was Dr.Hari Kiran at around 11.30 A.M., bleeding P.V.,, (Per
Vagina) is noticed and treated by the Hospital Doctors, in spite of treatment
there is no let up of bleeding P.V., and it was noted as atonic Post Partum
Hemorrhage (PPH) in the case sheet.

On the same day again

abdomen

opened under General Anesthesia and abdomen was closed after keeping a
drain patient condition did not improve it was thought to be a case D.I.C.,
(disseminated Intravascular Co-coagulation) and refer to higher centre for
Intensive Care Unit i.e., Viswa Bharathi Super Speciality Hospital, Gayathri
Estate, Kurnool at about 4.30 P.M. On 22.09.2011 at 6.45 P.M., patient was
admitted in Viswa Bharathi Super Speciality Hospital, Gayathri Estate,
Kurnool with Hospital No.4533-11/CCU.
E.T., (Endo Tracheal) Tube.

The patient was admitted with

Patient was treated with Fresh Blood

transfusion and appropriate medicines as per directions of the specialists.

Contd.,

The patient could not improve even on ventilators on 23.09.2011 at 1.30

P.M., patient expired. No postmortem examination was done. The enquiry is
based on record available like case sheet and statements made following
concerned persons witness husband and his friends, Committee concludes a
opinion that the operative treatment as per records was correct, except the
first blood transfusion for which no data was available, to show that the
blood was procured from a licensed blood bank, which is authorization to
issue the compatibility certificate.
Dr.M.Ranganath is examined as PW1 he deposed that he had seen the
same patient in C.N. Hospital on 22.09.2011 and suspected DIC and advised
her to take her to the hospital which is having better facilities. He also
admits that blood transfusion details will be recorded and pasted in case
sheet such details are available in Ex.X1 whereas those details are not
available in Ex.A1.

Dr.Y.Radhika, who is the one of member of enquiry

committee is examined as PW2 she deposed that she has not visited C.N.
Hospital and Viswabharathi Hospital personally. Generally data recording
blood transfusion details will be recorded and pasted in case sheet. Such
details are available in Ex.X1 whereas those details are not available in
Ex.A1. This fact is also mentioned in enquiry report. She also deposed for
generally DIC is develops due to multiple transmission of blood due to
mismatch of blood is one other reason. Opposite party No.1 is attended the
patient as Gynecologist at Viswabharathi Hospital also.
To avoid a transfusion reaction donated blood must be compatible
with the blood of the patient who is receiving the transfusion. Before a blood
transfusion two blood tests known as a type and cross match are done, DIC
Disseminated intravascular coagulation is serious disorder in which the
proteins that control blood clotting became abnormally active.

The risk

factor of DIC Includes O blood transfusion reaction concern specially certain

Type of leukemia, infection in blood by bacteria or fungus liver diseases
pregnancy complications (such as placenta that is left behind after delivery
recent surgery or Anesthesia Sepsis) severe tissue injury.

Contd.,

According to opposite party No.1 at the time of admission all the

necessary investigations was conducted as the patient was anemic opposite
party No.1 advised to attendant of patient to arrange two bottles of A+Ve
positive compatible blood, and it was arranged from outside on 20.09.2011
one blood was transfused, the condition of patient was good, again she
report on 21.09.2011 evening on 22.09.2011morning at 9.40 A.M. the
opposite party No.1 performed Caesarean Operation, spinal anesthesia was
administered by opposite party No.2 after two hours of operation she
developed bleeding from vagina heavily opposite party No.1 took all
measures to control the bleeding and transfused one bottle of blood to her,
the bleeding was not stop, opposite party No.1 performed hysterectomy with
the assistance of opposite party No.2 general anesthesia was given to her
and opposite party No.1 advised the attendant of patient to arrange four
bottles of A+Ve compatible blood and three bottles was transfused, Ex.B1 is
the case sheet of C.N. Hospital. The opposite party No.1 noticed that there
was a woozing of blood from operation site and fresh blood tricking from the
drain, and he suspected DIC in this case and shifted her to Viswabharathi
Hospital they have done D1 dimer test for the confirmation of DIC the it is
being reported as positive and they have also taken all the measures to
control the bleeding, but could not survive the patient and died on
23.09.2011 at 1.30 P.M. There is no negligence on the part of opposite party
No.1.

8.

Admittedly the patient by name Adilakshmi got admitted with full term

pregnant in the hospital of opposite party No.1 on 20.09.2011.

As the

patient was anemic opposite party No.1 advised for transfusion of blood two
bottles of blood arranged by the attendants of patient and one bottle was
transfused on 20.09.2011 before conducting the surgery. On 22.09.2011 at
9.40nA.M., opposite party No.1 performed Caesarean Operation, at 11.30
A.M., she developed heavy bleeding from Vagina, opposite party No.1
transfused one bottle of blood and suggested four bottles of blood. Then the

Contd.,

patient attendants arranged bottles from outside.

The allegation of the

complainant is that without conducted any compatibility test or cross

matching test the opposite party No.1 was transfused the blood to the
patient before the surgery and after the surgery and opposite party No.1 not
recorded or pasted the details of blood in case sheet (Ex.A1). It is further
case of complainant that due to the reaction of mismatch blood, the risk
factor DIC was happen to the patient after surgery and caused to death of a
patient. In order to substantiate the version of complainant the complainant
examined PW1 and PW2, PW1 is a doctor, who treated the patient in
opposite party No.3 hospital, the team of doctors who furnished their opinion
one of member is examined as PW2 also admitted the said fact that blood
transfusion details will be record and pasted in the case sheet. Such details
are available in Ex.X1 the case sheet of opposite party No.3 (Viswabharathi
Hospital) and such details are not available in Ex.A1 case sheet of C.N.
Hospital opposite party No.1.

As per the enquiry report conducted by

Dr.T.Dhanraj, Dr.Y.Radhika and Dr.M.Janaki they are in opinion that first

blood transfusion for which no data was available to show that the blood was
procured from a licensed blood bank, which is authorization to issue the
compatibility certificate, there is no entry of compatibility certificate,
number, or copy of certificate available. According to the complainant due to
mismatching of blood transfusion the patient died. The complainant alleged
that she died due to negligence on the part of opposite parties. The deceased
age about 29 years was working as private employee drawing a salary of
Rs.12,000/- per month.

The opposite party No.2 Anesthesist is also

negligent he has to observe the physical condition of patient and to make the
patient fit for anesthesia and operation and to determine the operative risk if
any, without observation of any he has administered spinal anesthesia at the
time of Caesarean 9.40 A.M., and on the same day at 12.45 P.M., general
anesthesia was administered for conducting hystectomy. The patient, who is
already anemic with HB of 6.4 before surgery.

She was operated on two

times (i.e.,) cesarean at 9.40 A.M., and about 1.10 P.M., hystectomy was

Contd.,

10

conducted. According to the opposite party No.1 on the advice of physician

the patient was shifted to opposite party No.3 hospital for better facilities. If
the opposite party No.1 has taken a precautionary steps and he would
consult the physician before hystectomy, she had the chances for survival
opposite party No.1 is too negligent in administrating treatment to the
patient in transfusion of blood and conducted the surgeries on two times
within 3.30 hours duration of time.
According to opposite party No.1 the patient case is PPH post partum
hemorrhage in which is sudden and unexpected development one of the
causes for the hemorrhage could be due to atomic (i.e.,) failure of the uterus
to contract. So long as uterus relaxed the bleeding would continue and he
suspected DIC and after D Dimer test it is confirmed that as being DIC. The
complainant contention is that the patient died due to DIC and that risk was
happened due to transfusion of blood to patient without cross matching and
compatibility test by the opposite party No.1.
The duties cast upon the opposite party No.1 to conduct test in order
to know the patient blood group the compatibility test is essential to avoid
any complications that would develop with blood of different group than that
of patient is transfused.
Precautions before the blood transfusion were not taken by opposite
party No.1 hospital, due care to transfusion process like from which blood
bank the unit was obtained, at what time what was their cross matching and
compatibility report, patient and unit under transfusion indentify etc., is not
recorded or not available in case sheet of opposite party No.1 (Ex.A1).

9.

The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that as per

the case sheet Ex.A1 of C.N. Hospital (opposite party No.1) transfused the
blood to patient without any proper testing of blood and as per the medical
literature and evidence of PW1, PW2 due to blood transfusion reaction the
DIC can arises and opposite party No.1 not noted the details of blood
transfusion and there is no blood bank registration to opposite party No.1.

Contd.,

11

To escape from his liability shifted the patient to opposite party No.3 hospital
without informing to the complainant. There is no signature of complainant
in case sheet of opposite party No.3 (Ex.X1).

Opposite party No.1 again

treated the patient in opposite party No.3 hospital also. PW1 deposed that
the patient died due to cardiac arrest. Therefore due to reaction of blood
transfusion only all the reaction arises.

The Bolam case Principles and

Jacob Mathew case is applicable to this case for the negligence of opposite
parties. Opposite party No.3 knows the negligence done by opposite party
No.1 but to hide from this issue they colluded with opposite party No.1 and
admitted the patient in his hospital, therefore opposite party No.3 is also
jointly responsible for the acts of opposite party No.1. He relied a decisions
reported in the Honourable Supreme Court in the Case of Dr.Lakshman
Balakrisna Hoshi is Dr.Trimbak Badu AIR 1969 SC Page 128 and as mitta
verses State of I.P. AIR 1989 SC Page 1570.
The Honourable State Commission laid down Principle that when a
doctor is consulted by a patient the doctor ones to his patient certain duties
(i.e.,)
A. Duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case.
B. Duty of care in deciding what treatment to give.
C. Duty of care in the administration of that treatment.
A breach of any of the duties may give a cause of action for negligence and
the patient may on that basis recover damages from his doctor.
He cited a decision reported in (2007) CPJ Page 341 (NC) Kalyani
Nursing Home and others -Vs- P.Chandra Mouli and others.

The

complainant wife delivered a female child which was a normal delivery.

Doctor neglected to suture episiotomy immediately, heavy bleeding started
and she become unconscious.

Patient died due to irreversible shock and

hemorrhage. Opposite party is liable to pay compensation.

In

C.C.No.4/2010

the

Honourable

A.P.

Smt.V.Madhavi -Vs-Dr.K.Thirupal Reddy and others.

State

Commission

In this case on the

advice of opposite party No.1 the complainant admitted in opposite party

Contd.,

12

No.3

hospital

and

Caesarean

Operation

was

done

on

08.08.2008,

09.08.2008 the complainant was administered blood transfusion as per the

instruction of the opposite party No.1, the complainant developed chest
tightness and breathing problem it was discontinued immediately. Opposite
parties 1 and 3 administered injections on 10.08.2008 the complainant
shifted to ICU ward of opposite party No.5. Opposite party No.5 disclosed
that the complainant was suffering with hypertension, renal failure,
coagulation failure and jaundice.

Before blood transfusion the opposite

party No.1 might to have checked the blood samples.

After she shifted

Fernandez Hospital, Hyderabad as these refused to admit she was admitted

to Appollo Hospital, Hyderabad she was attended various specialist and
incurred expenditure of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs). The Honourable
A.P. State Commission held that the opposite party No.1 to opposite party
No.5 had not taken responsible care at the time and also prior to the
transfusion of blood to the complainant, opposite parties are equally hold
negligent.

Hence they are liable to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-

intotal to the complainant.

In Revision Petition No.2264/2007 National Commission O.Devpal
-Vs- Dr.Wesley and another.

In this cited case the petitioner wife had

complaint of severe menstrual bleeding she was advised to undergo

hysterectomy by respondent No.1 and got admitted in respondent No.1
hospital.

She was advised blood transfusion prior to the surgery her

Hemoglobin count of 5 mg. Petitioner purchased 6 bottles of blood from

respondent No.2 and transfused her, the patient was operated on
25.05.1997 after operation she suffered from high fever respondent No.1
diagnosed that the patient was suffering from Typhoid and was given
treatment with required medicine for ten days.
12.06.1997.

She was diagnosed on

After discharge her condition was deteriorated and she was

admitted to Mary Lott Lyles Hospital where her blood was tested and
diagnosed as being positive for Hepatitis B and she died on 01.08.1997. It
was held that she suffered with Hepatitis B due to blood transfusion there

Contd.,

13

was medical negligence on the part of opposite parties.

The respondents

held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

10.

The facts pertaining to the hospitalization of the wife of complainant in

the opposite party No.1 hospital and having undergone blood transfusion
prior to Caesarean and after Caesarean in his hospital also are not in
dispute. As per the instructions of opposite party No.1 the blood for
transfusion was brought from outside and opposite party No.1 ought to have
checked the blood sample with cross match test and compatibility test prior
to the transfusion. It is established from medical record filed in evidence
and enquiry report and as per evidence of PW1 and PW2.

The details of

blood is not mentioned in C.N. Hospital case sheet (opposite party No.1)
(Ex.A1), where as it is available in case sheet of Viswabharathi Hospital
(Ex.X1). It is also clear from the case sheet (Ex.A1) that the opposite party
No.1 conducted Caesarean at 9.40 A.M., and again performed hystectomy at
1.10 P.M., on the same day (i.e.,) on 22.09.2011. The opposite party No.2
administered spinal anesthesia before Caesarean and general anesthesia
before hystectomy within duration of 3.30 hours of time without considering
the physical condition of patient, who is anemic opposite party No.1
performed two surgeries without consulting the physician. If the opposite
party No.1 had taken steps to consult physician prior to hystectomy the
physician will try their best to avoid it.

In order to cover up the negligence

of opposite party No.1 consulted physician after performed hystectomy when

the patient condition was deteriorated and shifted to opposite party No.3
hospital. According to opposite party No.1 he decided to go for emergency
hystectomy as it was a case of severe P.P.H., (Postpartum Hemorrhage). But
as per the medical literature this can happen when an organ is cut, the
blood vessels are not stitched up completely, or there is an emergency
problem during labor. They can also be caused by a tear in the vagina or
nearby tissue, a large episiotomy, or a ruptured uterus. For argument sake
even though we assume that it was a case of P.P.H., the opposite party No.1

Contd.,

14

might have done negligent act while performing the Cesarean to the patient
and she developed heavy bleeding from vagina after surgery. We persued the
sworn affidavit of complainant coupled with the opinion of expert committee
constituted by the superintendent of Government General Hospital, Kurnool
and evidence of PW1 an dPW2 would established that the opposite party
No.1 had not taken precautionary care to conduct cross matching or
compatibility test prior to transfusion and transfused the blood before
surgery and after surgery in his hospital. As per the standard of practice
opposite party No.1 ought to have conduct the tests to prevent from any
reactions, due to the negligence of opposite party No.1 due to the transfused
blood patient suffered with DIC, because loss of blood from her body, as a
result she died due to cardiac arrest.

It is established from the medical

literature and evidence of PW1 and PW2 due to wrong blood transfusion, the
DIC complication will cause to the receiptants of blood. Opposite parties 2
and 3 is not responsible for the negligence of opposite party No.1. Opposite
party No.2 administered anesthesia as per the procedure and make notes in
the case sheet (Ex.A1).

Opposite party No.3 arranged doctors to gave

treatment to patient and also blood transfusion was undergone with due
process by cross matching and compatibility test and the details are
mentioned in his case sheet (Ex.X1). Therefore opposite party No.3 is not
negligent and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties
2 and 3.

We consider all the material available on record facts and

circumstances of the case and in the light of cited decision. We are of the
opinion that opposite party No.1 is negligent in performing his medical
treatment towards the wife of complainant and found deficiency of service on
the part of opposite party No.1.

11. POINT No.ii:- It is further case of complainant that the wife of

complainant is at the age of 29 years, drawing a salary of Rs.12,000/- per
month before his death, she died leaving behind two minor children, the
children lost love and affection of their mother. The complainant incurred

Contd.,

15

medical expenditure, bills marked as Ex.A3 to Ex.A6.

Therefore the

complainant claim for compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees nineteen

lakhs). Basing on the evidence placed on record facts and circumstances the
complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five
lakhs) and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony.

12.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite

party No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) to the

complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e.,
on 29.11.2012 to till the date of realization and further direct to pay
Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as a costs of the case.
Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. The
complaint against opposite parties 2 and 3 is dismissed.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 15th day of March, 2016.
Sd/LADY MEMBER

Sd/PRESIDENT (FAC)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : PW1 and PW2

For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:Ex.A1

Photo copy of Case Sheet of C.N. Hospital.

Ex.A2.

Photo copy of Viswa Bharathi Blood Bank Compatibility Certificate

Nos.7.

Ex.A3

Photo copy of Viswa Bharathi Blood Bank Bill Nos.5.

Ex.A4

Photo copy of Viswa Bharathi ECG Test Receipts No.2.

Ex.A5

Photo copy of Prescriptions of Viswa Bharathi Hospital Nos.4.

Ex.A6

Photo copy of Swaroop Medical Shop Medical Bills Nos.10.

Ex.A7

Photo copy of Death Certificate issued by Viswa Bharathi Hospital

dated 12.10.2011.

Ex.A8

Photo copy of Andhra Jyothi New Papers Cutting dated 25.09.2011.

Ex.A9

Photo copy of Sakhi News Paper Cutting dated 21.12.2011.

Contd.,

16

Ex.A10

Office copy of Legal Notice dated 17.02.2011.

Ex.A11

Photo copy of Reply Notice of opposite party No.1 dated 14.04.2012.

Ex.X1

Case Sheet issued by Viswa Bharathi Super Speciaity Hospital,

Kurnool.

Ex.X1

Case Sheet of Viswa Bharathi Hospital, Kurnool.

PW1

Dr.M.Ranganath examine on behalf of complainant.

PW2

Dr.Y.Radhika examine on behalf of complainant.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:Ex.B1

Case Sheet of the complainant of C.N. Hospital, Kurnool.

Sd/LADY MEMBER

PRESIDENT (FAC)

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:Complainant and Opposite parties

Copy was made ready on

Copy was dispatched on

Contd.,