The patient was infected by dengue, he was hospitalised. Two units of blood was transfused. Thankfully, he recovered after four days and was discharged.
His health started deteriorating after about three to four months. He revisited the doctor at the hospital. To his utter shock and surprise, the patient was diagnosed with Hepatitis C.
He sued the hospital, alleging that one of the two units of blood that was transfused was Hepatitis C positive. The hospital should have been more careful in testing the blood before transfusing it, implored the patient.
The hospital contended that the blood was collected from a blood donation camp, and while it was tested using rapid test kit, ELISA test could not be performed as the blood had to be transfused urgently.
The Commission seemed unimpressed by the defence, as it observed the following:
“Upon checking the record, it is found that it was written in patient’s indoor file that blood bag nos. 4656 and 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 hospital’s staff. It was submitted that unit no. 4666 was discarded because it was HCV (+) and the patient was given the blood bags bearing nos. 4656 & 4661.”
“It is important to mention here that three components, i.e., red blood cells, plasma & platelets are prepared from one blood sample. Platelets from blood unit no. 4666 were given to the patient after performing rapid test. But later on, when the remaining components of the same unit 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.”
“Other indoor files were also checked during the investigation and it was found that these labels were mostly torn but the label of 4661 seemed to be completely new which showed that the label 4661 was pasted after removing label 4666. Therefore, the blood bank, hospital and pathologist, who was in charge of the blood bank, are equally negligent. Further, it is also a serious matter to tamper the record to cover up the error.”
While it could not be ascertained as to who had tampered the records, the hospital, blood bank and the pathologist were held negligent.
Source : Order pronounced by Punjab State Consumer Redressal Commission on 14th June, 2024.