Prafulla Kumar Sahoo vs B.B.PATTANAIK

DEFICIENCY in testing the blood is grievance of the complainant.

CASE of complainant is that he was admitted to Acharya Narihar Regional Center for Cancer Research and Treatment Society, Cuttack on 4.4.91. Thereafter he was given some treatment and was again admitted on 19.8.91. Blood transfusion being necessary, the blood group was tested by the opposite party in his laboratory at Medical Road, Mangalabag, Cuttack. The report indicated that the blood group was ''AB'' positive. On that basis the donors and institute including Orissa Red Cross Blood Bank were contacted and the blood could not be made available, the same being very rare group. Thereafter the Red Cross Blood Bank was requested the examine the blood group of complainant and the report indicated that he comes under the group ''B'' positive. Since there was variation in the test, doubts arise and blood was again given for test to opposite party. Second report indicate that complainant had the blood group ''B'' positive. Group ''B'' blood was transfused to the complainant. If group ''AB'' positive blood would have been transfused, complainant would have died on reaction. Since there was delay on account of controversial report, correct blood could not be transfused in time and the complainant had to be removed to Tata Institute of Cancer, Bombay. With necessary instructions he has returned and is continuing treatment. Complainant is an advocate, ordinarily practicing in Orissa High Court with high prospect in his profession. But is now waiting to breath his last which on account of negligence of opposite party. Opposite party has stated his case that on 19.8.91 at about 5.00 p.m. a person came with a sample for the purpose of evaluating blood group and declare that the same is of complainant, Prafulla Kumar Sahoo. The report was given on the same day. On 13.9.91 a sample was handed over at 5.00 p.m. by a person claiming the same to be of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo. The blood was tested and the report was given. There was no negligence in testing of the two samples and accordingly, complainant is not liable.

Complainant had expired on 4.2.92. Accordingly, her mother got herself substituted.

OPPOSITE Party No. 2 has not drawn the blood for test. Samples were supplied to him by others for test. There is no clear acceptable material to come to the conclusion that it is the blood of Prafulla which was handed over for test. Even it is accepted that Prafulla''s blood was tested both the times, first test is alleged to be outcome of negligence. There was no blood transfusion on basis of first test. Accordingly, on account of test there was no suffering of Prafulla. If there was doubt about the correctness of the test report given on 1991, there is no reason why there was delay till 5.12.91. Extract of a book named ''Practical Hematology'', 5th Edition, published by Churchil Living stone Publication has been furnished where some circumstances of change of group have been indicated. However, in the present case, the same is not required to be considered. When there was no clear material to come to conclusion that on account of wrong testing of blood, Prafulla suffered, we are not inclined to give any direction under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. However, we would like to observe that opposite party and others who carry on pathological tests should be more careful in future, as diagnosis would depend upon such tests. In case of blood grouping, a reference from a doctor should be insisted upon indicating that he has extracted blood.

IN result, complaint has no merit and is dismissed. Complaint dismissed.