Blood Transfusion : STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Consumer Complaint No. 6 of 2011 Date of Institution 21.01.2011 Date of Decision 01.03.2012 1. Mrs.Suman aged about 30 years w/o Desraj resident of # 176, Block J, Colony No.4, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. 2. Desraj aged about 35 years s/o Pitamber resident of # 176, Block J, Colony No.4, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. 3. Vikas aged about 10 years s/o Desraj through his father and natural guardian Desraj resident of # 176, Block J, Colony No.4, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. 4. Jyoti aged about 8 years s/o Desraj through her father and natural guardian Desraj resident of # 176, Block J, Colony No.4, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. 5. Vikas aged about 5 years s/o Desraj through his father and natural guardian Desraj resident of # 176, Block J, Colony No.4, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. .…Complainants Versus 1. Government Multi-Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh through its Director Principal. 2. Mrs.Kirti Sood, Lab Technician, Government Multi-Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh through the Medical Superintendent, GMSH, Sector 16, Chandigarh. 3. Dr.Navdeep Intern, Government Multi-Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh through the Medical Superintendent, GMSH, Sector 16, Chandigarh. 4. Dr.Manpreet, House Surgeon, Government Multi-Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh through the Medical Superintendent, GMSH, Sector 16, Chandigarh. 5. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Sector 12, Chandigarh through its Medical Superintendent. (OP No.5 deleted vide order dated 25.01.2011). …. Opposite Parties BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH, MEMBER Argued by: Sh.Pankaj Chandgothia, Adv. for the complainants Ms.Smriti Dhir, Advocate for OP No.1. Sh.N.P.Sharma, Advocate for OP No.2. Sh.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for OP No.3. Sh.K.L.Arora, Advocate for OP No.4. ---- MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER 1. The facts of the case, in brief, are that in the month of December, 2010, complainant No.1-Mrs.Suman was pregnant for nine months and was expecting her baby any day. It was stated that, in order to ensure safe delivery of her baby, under proper medical supervision, she alongwith her husband Desraj-complainant no.2, went to Government Multi-Speciality Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “GMSH”) on 16.12.2010. It was further stated that in GMSH, a medical treatment card was prepared, in the name of Mrs.Suman after taking requisite charges of Rs.10/-. It was further stated that the doctor came to the conclusion that complainant No.1 required blood transfusion, on the same day. She was, therefore, admitted as an in-patient, by Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that the team of doctors and technicians consisting of Opposite Parties No.2, 3 and 4 i.e. Ms Kirti Sood, Dr. Navdeep and Dr. Manpreet respectively were assigned the duties to handle the case of complainant No.1. It was further stated that the treating doctors directed Sh.Des Raj-complainant No.2, to arrange a unit of Blood for transfusion, by giving him the requisition slip. It was further stated that the blood units were arranged, in time, and given to the attending doctors for transfusion. It was further stated that soon after the blood was transfused to complainant No.1, she started feeling uneasy. It was further stated that her husband-Desraj ran helter-skelter, to inform the doctors/nurses, but the concerned doctors were not available immediately. It was further stated that after sometime, when the patient was attended to, the concerned Doctor took, it casually and informed that everything would be all right. It was further stated that the condition of complainant No.1 deteriorated, so much so, that it resulted into the death of the full-term foetus, and failure of the kidney of complainant No.1. It was further stated that it transpired that the doctors had transfused blood group B+ to Suman, though her blood group was A+.. It was further stated that all the above facts were accepted and endorsed by the Chandigarh Administration itself, on the basis of the inquiry report dated January 3, 2011, submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, South, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The relevant conclusions arrived at, by the Inquiry Officer are as under:- "The Inquiry Committee implicates the following persons in the commission of this gross medical negligent act:- 1. Mrs. Kirti Sood, Lab Technician: She issued the blood bag without cross-checking for the requisite important details of the patient and more particularly the blood group and later on concealing the facts and tampering with the sample. The possibility of destruction of the sample and the blood requisition form cannot be excluded by the Inquiry Committee. 2. Dr.Navdeep, Intern: She initiated the transfusion to the patient without checking and re-checking the requisite details of the patient with the details given on the blood bag and started the transfusion on the presumption that the blood bag lying beside the patient is meant for the patient only, violating all the fundamental blood transfusion protocols. Moreover, she failed to inform her seniors regarding the transfusion and showing gross carelessness and insensitivity failed to monitor the patient. 3. Dr. Manpreet, House Surgeon: The role played by Dr. Manpreet, the House Surgeon is also not a small one. She being wholly responsible for the transfusion of the blood to patients in the labour room, failed to check for the required details in the blood bag with that of the patient’s case sheet as soon as the blood bag was brought and kept on the table by the nursing student. Without even checking for the details on the blood bag she simply passed on responsibility of the transfusion to her amateur/new junior colleague. Moreover, she did not follow up the patient and failed to monitor the patient. 2. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were negligent, while rendering medical services to complainant No.1. It was further stated that thereafter complainant No.1 was hurriedly referred to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI) by Opposite Party No. 4, on 16.12.2010, itself. It was further stated that due to the aforesaid acts of omission and commission, on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainants had to incur several expenses for tests and other things, including expensive medicines at the PGI. It was further stated that Complainant No.1, in all probability, will remain bed-ridden for life, requiring heavy medication and intensive medical care. It was further stated that her husband, Desraj used to do labour jobs and earn around Rs.200/- per day for the family, which he will be unable to earn now. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were negligent and deficient, in rendering service. Hence, this complaint was filed, seeking the following reliefs: i) Rs.5 lakhs towards re-imbursement of medical and other expenses; ii) Rs.15 lakhs towards loss of earnings of husband Desraj, since he will now be unable to earn as he will have to attend to his wife forever (@Rs.5000/- per month for 25 years, life expectancy being 60 years). iii) Rs. 9 lakhs towards loss of earnings of Suman, as she will also be unable to work for her entire life.(@ Rs.2500/- per month for 30 years, life expectancy being 60 years) iv) Rs.54 lakhs towards minimum expected expenditure to be incurred on medicines for an entire lifetime @ Rs. 500/- per day for 30 years as the life expectancy is 60 years. v) Rs. 2 lakh each as token damages for each of the children to compensate them for the physical and emotional loss of mother's love and care. vi) Rs.3 lakhs each as punitive damages against each of the guilty doctors, OP Nos.2, 3 and 4 as token punishment for their medical negligence. 3. In its written version, Opposite Party No.1 stated that the complainant is not a consumer, as defined under Section 2(i)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) as the Opposite Party No.1-Hospital, is owned and managed by the Chandigarh Administration and provides services without any charges whatsoever (i.e. free of service) to every person. It was further stated that, as per the records, it was the sixth conception (i.e. a case of grand multipara) of complainant No.1-Mrs.Suman and she had a history of two previous still births. Her hemoglobin was 7.5 gm% (anaemic) on 16.12.2010. It was further stated that it could not be said with certainty, that Intra Uterine Death(IUD) occurred as a consequence of wrong transfusion of blood. The reason for fatal distress may be the other reason. It was further stated that complainant No.1 was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, for further treatment. It was further stated that thorough inquiry was got conducted by the Chandigarh Administration and Opposite Parties No.2, 3 and 4 were found negligent, in their duties, and disciplinary action, had already been initiated, against them, as per law. It was denied that complainant No.1 would remain bed ridden for life and require medication and medical care for the whole life. It was further stated that, OP No.1-Hospital was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments were denied being wrong, 4. In her written statement, Opposite Party No.2 stated that the complaint was not maintainable, as the matter, in controversy, required elaborate and detailed evidence and, as such, it could not be adduced in the summary procedure. It was further stated that the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer was patently illegal, because the entire sequence of events as enumerated, in the said inquiry report, relied upon, related to the co-admission and hospitalization of two patients by the same name the first being (1) Suman w/o kedarnath aged about 26 years with CR no. 06189422 blood group being B+ and (ii) Suman w/o Desraj aged about 30 years with CR no. 11098715 whose blood group was A+. It was further stated that after extensive enquiry, the said Inquiry Officer had failed to unearth that third Suman w/o Shanker aged about 30 yrs with CR no.12148694 whose blood group was A+ was also co-admitted in the same hospital and ward as the other two Suman’s. It was further stated the third Suman was also issued one unit of blood by the Blood Bank on 16.12.2010 against the receipt of Rs.150/- (Annexure R-2). It was further stated that the basic facts that there being not two but three patients, admitted at the same time, in the hospital, having the same name, had been missed out by the Inquiry Officer. It was further stated that, thus, the inquiry report dated 03.01.2011 was not authentic being baseless. It was further stated that at page 8-53 of the said inquiry report, it was wrongly mentioned that since there was no other lady Lab Technician, in the Blood Bank, in the morning shift of 16.12.2010, between 0800-1400 hours, hence the answering Opposite Party, received both the samples, from the husbands of both Suman’s on that day. It was further stated that the bare perusal of both the entire (A) blood Grouping Register as maintained and duly certified by the Medical Officer/BTO, Blood Bank for the period 1.12.2010 till 20.12.2010 as also (B) Blood Issue Register, which was also duly certified by the Medical Officer/BTO, Blood Bank, for the period 1.12.2010 till 19.12.2010 showed that Ms. Shivani, Lab Technician of the Blood Bank was present on 16.12.2010 prior to the joining of the duty of Opposite Party No.2 who remained present during the period 1400-2000 hours only on that day after which Ms. Shivani again joined the duty for the night shift w.e.f. 2000 hours of 16.12.2010 to 0800 hours of 17.12.2010. Reliance was placed upon the extracts from Blood Group Register (Annexure R-3) at internal page no.14 Sr.No.12, where a sample of blood as received was type tested for blood group and found to be A+ of Mrs.Suman with Cr. No. GYN/12148694 (this being the 3rd Suman ignored by the Inquiry Officer). This showed that Opposite Party No.2 joined duty after the said Ms.Shivani as her signatures were found starting with Sr. No.15 onwards as per Blood Issue Register (Annexure R-4) at internal page No.27 Serial No.5769 where a Blood Unit was issued by Ms. Shivani to the attendant of Suman with CR No.12148694 Blood Type being A+ being the same very 3rd Suman. It was further stated that the issuance of blood unit by Opposite Party No.2 started with Sr. No.5772 on internal page No.28. It was further stated that, Opposite Party No.2 was not negligent in performing her duties hence the complaint qua her be dismissed. The remaining averments were denied being wrong. 5. In her written version, Opposite Party No.3-Dr.Navdeep, stated that she was an intern and was undergoing internship training in OP No.1-Hospital under Opposite Party No.4, which was a part of the MBBS course in which a job training is given to MBBS students after they have completed 4-1/2 years of study. It is a kind of practical training. It was further stated that the intern is not a person who is providing any service, as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further stated that the norms and protocols are taught to the trainee, on a practical level, in the hospital, during the period of internship. It was further stated that, during this period, the intern is entrusted with clinical responsibility under direct supervision of Senior Medical Officer and he/she could not work independently. It was further stated that the blood transfusion was started, in the Clean Labour Room and no attendant of the patient was allowed therein. It was further stated that there had been quick pregnancies in relation to complainant No.1, without affording her any time, to recover her strength. Two earlier still births occurred because of the debilitated condition of complainant No.1. It was further stated that even on 16-12-2010 she had exceeded her expected date of delivery by two days. It was further stated that the option of performing autopsy had been given to Sh.Des Raj, on the dead foetus but he refused and, as such, the complainants could not level the allegation of death having occurred due to wrong blood transfusion. It was denied that there was any failure of kidney of complainant No.1 because of wrong transfusion of blood group. It was further stated that to combat this eventuality, the procedure is that the person is put on dialysis to take out any residue and reverse any damage, which was done in the present case, after which the person could go home. It was denied that the death of foetus occurred due to wrong blood transfusion. It was further stated that when the mistake was discovered immediate remedial measures were taken. When the patient was found dehydrated, a call for second unit of blood was made when the blood bank informed that no blood unit was earlier issued to complainant No.1 but was issued for another Suman. Then the parameters were checked with regard to urine. On realizing the same, she was instantly sent to PGI alongwith one Postgraduate Student and one Intern. The patient was managed well without any side effects either permanent or temporary and the PGI was able to carry out all traces of blood and ensured that there was no residual damaged. It was further stated that in the Inquiry Report submitted by the SDM (South), the explanations/defences given by the various doctors, found no mention. Even no doctor signed the report with regard to its authenticity and, as such, the same had no value in the eyes of law. It was further stated that complainant No.1 was given free treatment in PGI including the injections. All other averments, made in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Party, was not deficient, in rendering service and hence, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. 6. Opposite Party No.4-Dr.Manpreet, in her written version, stated that she had recently passed MBBS in June, 2010 and Opposite Party No.1-GMSH appointed her as House Surgeon on contract basis, for a period of three months from 30.09.2010 to 31.12.2010. It was further stated that the Gynecology Branch works under the Medical Officer Dr.Neeru, DNB, Dr.Ritika besides Nursing Sister Meena. Dr.Neeru was the overall Incharge of the evening shift. It was further stated that Dr.Ritika was the DNB at the relevant time, in the evening shift. It was further stated that complainant No.1 never hired the services of answering Opposite Party, for consideration, and hence she is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(i)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Party was not in the labour room, but was in Post Natal Ward No.3 and other permanent staff was there which was not impleaded as parties. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Party was off duty at 8.00 p.m. on 16.12.2010. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Party was not aware of whether any wrong blood was transfused. It was further stated that the enquiry conducted by the SDM (South), UT, Chandigarh was not fair & proper as the principles of natural justice were not followed at all. All other averments, made in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that, the answering Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice. 7. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the entire record of the case including the written arguments, affidavits, interrogatories and cross-interrogatories, replies thereto, Inquiry Report along with the statements etc. very carefully. 9. The first question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are consumers as per section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 qua the Opposite Parties. The answer to this question, is in the affirmative. The medical treatment card dated 10.11.2010 at page 539 issued, in the name of complainant No.1, clearly shows that under the column “category”, the word “paid” was mentioned. The fact that complainant No.1 had paid consideration for blood bag, finds corroboration, from the affidavit filed by Dr.Chander Mohan, Director Health and Family Welfare, UT, Chandigarh (Opposite Party No.1), wherein, in his reply to question no.4 of the interrogatories, he stated that the complainant-Suman Deshraj had been charged process fee for blood as per the National Blood Transfusion Council/Government of India guidelines. Hence, the contention of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected and it is held that the complainants are consumers as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as they hired the services of the Opposite Parties for consideration. Our view is further fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Ors., III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), decided by a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in which it was held that when the service is rendered by a Government Hospital/Health Centre/Dispensary where services are rendered on payment of charges and also rendered free of charge to other persons availing such services would fall within the ambit of the expression ‘service’ as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the service is rendered free of charge to persons who do not pay for such service. Free service would also be ‘service’ and the recipient a ‘consumer’ under the Act. Therefore, in view of the principle of law laid down, in the aforesaid case, the complainants are consumers under the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the Act. 10. The second question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether, the death of the foetus and dys-functioning of the kidney of complainant No.1, occurred due to the wrong transfusion of blood group because of the negligence of the employees i.e. Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 of OP No.1-Hospital. The fact that Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 were found negligent in their duties was fairly admitted by Opposite Party no.1, in para numbers 6 and 7 of the written statement, which were further corroborated by an affidavit of Dr.Chander Mohan, Director Health and Family Welfare, GMSH, Sector 16, Chandigarh. He also stated that Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 were found negligent in their duties and, as a consequence thereof, disciplinary action was initiated against them, in accordance with law. Sh.Kavle V.Parshuram, IAS, SDM (South), Chandigarh was appointed as an Inquiry Officer who submitted his Inquiry Report with the assistance of Dr.A.Muthamma, IAS (P), Assistant Commissioner (UT, Chandigarh, Dr.Vipin Kaushal, Medical Superintendent, GMCH, Sector 32,Chandigarh and Dr.Poonam Goel the then HOD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh. 11. As per the Inquiry Report dated 03.01.2011, Opposite Party No.2-Ms.Kirti Sood, Technician was held negligent in performing her duties, because she issued the blood bag without cross-checking for requisite important details of the patient and, more particularly, her blood group and later on concealing the facts and tampering with the sample. The fact that on 16.12.2010 Opposite Party No.2-Ms.Kirti Sood, Lab Technician was on duty from 2.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m was fairly admitted by her, in her statement, at page no.595. She, however, categorically denied that she received any blood requisition form of Suman wife of Deshraj. But from the perusal of the copy of the Blood Issue Register at Sr.No.5776 (at Page No.179), it is evident that Opposite Party No.2 issued B+ve blood bag to the husband of Smt.Suman wife of Sh.Desraj instead of A+ve blood bag. This fact is also corroborated from the certified copy of the case sheet produced by Opposite Party No.1, on the direction of this Commission, wherein, the compatibility sticker affixed on the same showed that blood B+ve Group with Cr.No.6189422 pertained to one Smt.Suman wife of Sh.Kedar Nath but Opposite Party No.2, wrongly issued the same to Smt.Suman wife of Sh.Desraj. This fact stands further substantiated from the statement of Ms.Shivani, Lab Technician, which is at page no.614, wherein, she stated that on 16.12.2010, she was on duty from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. of the next morning of 17.12.2010 and on the asking of Dr.Ritu, she called Mrs.Saroj, Incharge Blood Bank and told her that Ms.Kirti, Lab Technician, while on duty in the evening, issued a blood bag of Smt.Suman wife of Sh.Kedarnath to Smt.Suman wife of Sh.Deshraj. After seeing the Issue Register, Mrs.Saroj even stated, in her statement, at page 620, that no blood bag was issued in the name of Smt.Suman w/o Sh.Deshraj, rather one unit of blood was issued in the evening by Mrs.Kirti Sood to Suman w/o Kedarnath. She further stated that Ms.Shivani told her that Dr.Ritu, DNB, Gynae brought a fresh blood sample of Smt.Suman wife of Sh.Desh Raj and, on testing the same, it was found to be A+ve. She further stated that on telephone Dr.Ritu, DNB, Gynae who was standing alongwith Ms.Shivani told her that B+ve blood had been transfused to A+ve patient. In view of the above, there is, no doubt, in our mind, that Mrs.Kirti Sood, Lab Technician, without properly checking and rechecking the details of the patients, unique central registration no. and the blood group of the patients, wrongly issued a B+ve blood unit of Smt.Suman wife of Sh.Kedarnath to A+ve patient i.e. Smt.Suman wife of Sh.Deshraj. So Opposite Party No.2 is held to be negligent in the performance of her duties sincerely and diligently. 12. Coming to the role of Opposite Party No.3, it may be stated here that from the Certificate of Compulsory Rotatory Internship Training dated 01.04.2011 produced by Opposite Party No.1, on the direction of this Commission, it is proved that Opposite Party No.3-Dr.Navdeep, Intern joined the services of OP No.1-Hospital on 01.08.2010. She was on duty in Obst. & Gynae Department w.e.f. 01.12.2010. In fact, she was working as an intern for the last four months in different departments of OP No.1-Hospital. Hence, the stand taken by Opposite Party No.3, that it was her first day in Gynae Department is falsified. Further we do not find any force, in the contention of the Counsel for Opposite Party No.3, that there was no negligence on the part of OP No.3 because she performed her duties on the directions of Opposite Party No.4. There is no doubt that blood transfusion was carried out by Opposite Party No.3 on the directions of Dr.Manpreet Kaur-Opposite Party No.4 but before transfusion of the blood, being a doctor, and as per the medical ethics/norms, it was her bounden duty to check and re-check the requisite details of the patient, with the details given on the blood bag, and if she had any doubt then she should have consulted her Senior doctor but, she by violating all the fundamental blood protocols, transfused the blood on the presumption, that the blood bag lying by the side of complainant No.1 was meant for her only and, as such, undoubtedly the medical negligence of Opposite Party No.3 is proved. 13. Comingn to the medical negligence of Opposite Party No.4-Dr.Manpreet, House Surgeon, the same is proved from her statement at 593, wherein, she stated that on 16.12.2010 (from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m.) she alongwith Dr.Neeru, MO, Dr.Retika, DNB and Dr.Navdeep, Intern was on duty. She further stated, in her statement, that Smt.Suman wife of Sh.Desraj was to be transfused one unit of blood and for this reason, she checked all the required formalities i.e. universal colour label code, card number, patient name, the blood group of the patient and the donor no. on the blood bag, which was issued by the blood bank. In the meantime, she got a call from the Post Natal Ward-3 for dressings of post caesarean patient and before leaving the labour room, she instructed Opposite Party No.3, that, in case, she came late then she could transfuse the blood to complainant No.1. Accordingly, Opposite Party No.3 on the presumption that the said blood bag had already been checked by her Senior started transfusing the B+ve blood group instead of A+ve blood group to Suman wife of Sh.Desh Raj, which resulted into death of foetus as well as failure of her kidney. From the sequences of events, it is established that due to the palpable negligence of Opposite Parties No.2 to 4, complainant No.1 suffered intra uterine death (IUD) and failure of her kidney. Since there was no arrangement for dialysis in OP No.1-Hospital, she was shifted to PGI for further treatment. 14. Even otherwise, in the Inquiry Report, which is an important of piece of evidence, it was held that due to the carelessness and negligence of Opposite Parties No.2 to 4, Ms.Suman suffered intra uterine death and failure of her kidney because of the wrong transfusion of blood. Thus, from the evidence, on record, and the Inquiry Report, we do not feel any hesitation in concluding that there was negligence per se on the part of the Opposite Parties. It is a clear case of res ipsa loquitur (the things speak themselves). In the case-Postgraduate institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Vs. Jaspal Singh and others (2009) 7 SCC 333, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that mismatch in transfusion of blood resulting in the death of the patient after 40 days, was a case of medical negligence. Thus, mismatch of blood transfusion, is one of the illustrations, given in various textbooks, on medical negligence, to indicate the application of res ipsa loquitur. 15. We do not find any force, in the contention of the Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 that since it was the sixth conception (i.e. case of grand multipara) of Ms.Suman who had a history of two previous still births and her hameoglobin was 7.5 gm % (anaemic) on 16.12.2010, so it could not be said with certainty that the intra uterine death (IUD) occurred as a consequence of wrong transfusion of blood. In our considered view, in order to avoid the complications, in her pregnancy, and being anaemic, complainant No.1 approached Opposite Party No.1-Hospital with the hope to get better treatment but due to mismatched transfusion of blood by the Opposite Parties, she suffered intra uterine death (IUD) and failure of her kidney. 16. The contention of the counsel for Opposite Party No.1-Hospital that it is not vicariously liable to pay compensation for the negligence of Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 is baseless because once it had been admitted by it that Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 were negligent in performing their duties and it being their employer, who were working under its control and supervision, is responsible for the acts of omission and commission of its employees i.e. doctors and para-medical staff, whether they were employed on permanent basis or as consultants or as visiting doctors. Thus, Opposite Party No.1 is vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the complainants. 17. It is evident from the discharge card for the period from 17.12.2010 to 21.01.2011 at page-367 issued by the PGI, Chandigarh, that complainant No.1 recovered/improved from the acute renal failure and now she is only on medication and follow up treatment. At the time of arguments, the Counsel of Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the general health of complainant No.1 is alright and she is no more on dialysis and her kidneys are normal. From the discharge card, it is apparent that complainant No.1 was discharged and she recovered from acute renal failure. Though according to Opposite Party no.1, complainant No.1 is perfectly alright, yet it cannot be ruled out, that due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties, complainants no.1 and 2 suffered both mentally and physically and, as such, they are certainly entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment expenditure, if any, incurred on medicines, tests etc. 18. Coming to the quantum of compensation, It is evident that a sum of Rs.50000/- vide cheque No.391290 dated 10.02.2011, as monetary compensation, was given by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, UT, Chandigarh to the complainants. Expenditure of Rs.8434/- incurred on the treatment of complainant No.1, was also reimbursed by the OP No.1-Hospital under the budget of Rogi Kalyan Smiti. In our considered view, this amount of compensation of Rs.50000/- is too meagre, to meet the ends of justice. Keeping in view the financial status of the complainants, who belong to a poor family, death of the foetus, loss of income of the complainant No.2(being a labourer) during the period of treatment of her wife i.e. Mrs.Suman(being housewife), loss of income of Suman-complainant No.1 during the period, she remained admitted in the hospital, the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by them due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties, we deem it appropriate to award a consolidated compensation of Rs.4 lacs to them (complainants) on all these counts. Besides this, we are of the considered opinion that it is the bounden duty of the OP No.1-Hospital to bear all the expenses of the future treatment of complainant No.1, if she required the same besides the amount already given to the complainants. 19. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is allowed with costs. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the complainants. The Opposite parties shall also pay to the complainants Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation. Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to bear all the expenses, which may be incurred on the future treatment of complainant No.1, in any government hospital/health centre/dispensary etc. 20. This order be complied with, by the Opposite Parties within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the same, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.4 lacs alongwith penal interest @ 12% p.a., to the complainants, from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 21.01.2011, till its realization, besides costs of litigation. 21. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 22. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced. Sd/- 01.03.2012 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT cmg sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER