Medical Negligence:Consumer Protection: Wrong blood Transfusion-Death Casued-Medical Negligence: Hon'ble NCDRC

-

In the Case of M/S. SAMAD HOSPITAL & ORS VS. S. MUHAMMED BASHEER & ORS: the Hon'ble NCDRC has Held that Death caused due to Wrong Blood Transfusion is Medical Negligence under Consumer Protection Act.

Brief Facts of the Case:

The victims in the case of are a married couple, A.K. nazeer and his wife Sajeena, who underwent infertility treatment at Samad Hospital.

Sajeena was diagnosed with fibroid uterus and underwent laparoscopic surgery. Following the surgery, Dr. Sathi M. Pillai (a hospital staff doctor) requested a blood transfusion, following which she developed blood transfusion reactions and complications, which were allegedly caused by a mismatch of blood type, i.e. (being given B+ blood instead of O+ blood). Her body was unable to contain the reactions, and she succumbed to her infections.Not Satisfied with the hospital’s negligence, the victims filed a Consumer Complaint before the Hon'ble State Commission, which partially allowed the complaint and ordered the hospital to pay compensation of 9,33,000/- with a cost of 15000 to the complainants.

Having aggrieved by the State Commission’s decision, the Respondent-Hospital Management has filed an appeal with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

For more details please read the full judgment cited above.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 Judgment Detailed Summary

-
Image
Case Overview: Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2001 Parties: Petitioner: Anathula Sudhakar (Defendant in the original suit) Respondent: P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) represented by legal representatives Background: The suit was originally filed by Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy, who claimed ownership of two sites (110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards) in Matwada, Warangal town. They alleged that the defendant interfered with their possession when they began construction on the sites in 1978, leading them to file a suit for a permanent injunction. The defendant, Anathula Sudhakar, claimed that he had purchased the entire suit property (300 sq. yards) from K.V. Damodar Rao (brother of the plaintiffs' vendor, Rukminibai) under a registered sale deed in 1977 and that the property was mutated in his name in municipal records. Trial Court and Lower Courts: Trial Court: The suit was decreed in favor of...
Read more

Before Deciding on Interim, Ensure that there is atleast a preliminary satisfaction regarding the Suit Maintainbility: HSC

-
Image
Summary of Judgment: Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. Citation: 2024 INSC 36 Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013 Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar Legal Issues: Whether the order dated 5th August 1991, decreeing the suit against Samiullah under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently is incapable of execution. Whether the objections under Section 47 of the CPC by the subsequent purchasers were maintainable. Background: The appellants claimed that their great-grandmother orally gifted them a certain property on 16th August 1988, which was later recorded in a memorandum before the tehsildar. The appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Asad Ullah Kazmi (defendant no. 1), his son Samiullah (defendant no. 2), and a caretaker (defendant no. 3), restraining them from interfering with their possession of...
Read more