1. Case of the complainant is that his maternal uncle Rehmat Ali was admitted in District Head Quarter Hospital, Gujranwala on 15-09-07. According to the diagnosis he was suffered from Enaemia. Transfusion of blood was suggested by the physician. Complainant produced some donors before the blood transfusion center whose blood samples were tested by respondent No.4 to 7 in the hospital laboratory and declared one of the donors to be a patient of Hepatitis-C with malafide intention so that the complainant may purchase the blood of the required group from private blood labs whereas the blood sample of the same boy was found free from any such disease when it was got tested from the Asad Lad situated out side of the Hospital. Complainant further alleged that blood samples of Asim Gujjar, Qaiser Hanif, Akram, Bilal Gujjar, Shahid Butt, Shoaib etc donors were also tested by the respondents and were rejected with malafide intension and the consequence of which complainant has to spent a lot of expenditure to purchase the blood from private laboratories and in this way respondents are guilty of providing deficient services to the complainant. According to the complainant an application to this effect was filed before the respondent No.1 who deputed respondent No.2 for making an inquiry but respondent No.2 refused to hand over the inquiry report to the complainant. Both the respondent No.1 and 2 have not proceeded against respondent No. 4 to 7. All the respondent may be directed to pay Rs.
1,00,000/-. The following detail of damages was mentioned by the complainant in the plaint:- Expenses of tests : Rs. 20,000/- Expenses of purchase of blood : Rs. 20,000/- Expenses of tests : Rs. 20,000/- Expenses of mental torture and wastage of time : Rs. 40,000/-
2. Respondents while submitting reply explained that Rehmat Ali S/o Muhammad Saeed was admitted in ward No. 6 of District Head Quarter Hospital, Gujranwala. Only one donor namely Muhammad Akram was produced in the hospital Lab by the patient whose blood sample was found HCV +ve and the blood transfusion center refused to bleed Muhammad Akram. None of the donor as claimed by the complainant was ever produced in the Lab. An inquiry was conducted on the application of complainant by respondent No.2 on the direction of respondent No.1 and no malafide on the part of lab staff was found while screening the blood sample of donor Muhammad Akram. As far as the HCV negative result of the blood of donor Muhammad Akram from a private lab is concerned the same can not be accepted unless his blood group is examined from a referee lab or a third empire. According to the respondent rest of the contents of complaint were frivolous.
The complainant in an earlier application to the Medical Superintendent District Head Quarter Hospital, Gujranwala has mentioned that eight packs of blood were transfused to the patient whereas as per hospital record only three packs of blood were transfused.
3. In order to establish his case complainant appeared as PW1 and produced Rehmat Ali as PW2, Qaiser Hanif as PW3. He also produced the following documents:- Reference letter exhibit "PA", report Amina Lab exhibits "PB", "PG/1-10", "PP", "PW/1-7", exhibit report Asad lab exhibit "PC", "PD", "PE", "PF", "PS" receipts of legal notices exhibits PH/1-4, receipt of trama center exhibit "P1", receipt of cross match exhibit "PJ", "PK", "PQ" discharge slip of hospital exhibits "PL", "PM", receipt of purchase of blood exhibit "PN", "PO". Copy of requisition form of hospital mark "A", copy of legal notice mark "B", "C", "E", report of D.H.Q exhibit "PJ", receipt of check up exhibit "PV",
4. On the other hand respondent No. 3 appeared as RW1, respondent No.4 as RW2, respondent No. 5 as RW3, respondent No. 6 as RW4, respondent No. 7 as RW5, Dr. Shabir as RW6, Dr. Imran as RW7, Mirza Abdul Hamid as RW8 and following documentary evidence were produced:- Attested copy of screening register exhibit "RA", attested copy of report blood register exhibit "RB", Attested copy of collection register exhibit "RC", Attested copy of attending register exhibit "RD", copy of chart patient mark "RA". Certificate of job description of respondents exhibit "RE".
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. In this case defective/deficient service on the part of the respondents has been alleged by the complainant stating that so many donors namely Asim Gujjar, Qaiser Hanif, Akram, Bilal Gujjar, Shahid Butt, Shoaib etc were produced in the blood bank and their blood samples after examination were declared, with malafide intention, unfit for transfusion to the patient Rehmat Ali by the respondents. None of the above named donor was produced by the complainant in the Court during the course of trial except Qaiser Hanif who appeared as PW3 and stated that on 29- 09-07 his blood sample was examined by Khawaja Iftikhar and Ishaq in the hospital lab who declared him a patient of Hepatitis-C. Whereafter he went to Amina lab where no such disease was detected and he was bleeded. One pack of his blood was transfused to Rehmat Ali. In his cross examination he could not point out that on 29-09-07 where the patient Rehmat Ali was. On the other hand contention of the respondents is that Qasier Hanif never appeared in the hospital lab for examination of his blood sample.
7. I have minutely examined the relevant record of the blood bank of District Head Quarter Hospital, Gujranwala and could not find that blood sample of this PW was examined by the hospital lab.
Complainant produced photo copy of blood requisition form mark "A" showing that on the back of the said document name of Qaiser Hanif shows that he was examined and Hepatitis C was found positive in his blood. Perusal of the said document shows that requisition for blood transfusion was sent by some one from ward No.5 on 29-09-07 for Rehmat Ali. From the Respondent's side this document have been declared as fabricated one. I have examined the complete record of District Head Quarter Hospital regarding Rehmat Ali according to which he was admitted in the hospital on 15-09-07 in ward No. 6 and was discharged on 20-09-07. Signature of complainant Muhammad Yaseen with a sentence that he is taking his patient home on 20-09-07 can be found on the bed head ticket of Rehmat Ali. According to this record only three packs of the blood were transfused to Rehmat Ali. It means that Rehmat Ali was not admitted in ward No.5. He was discharged from hospital on 20-09-07 and mark "A" showing him to be admitted on 29-09-07 in the hospital and examination of Qaiser Hanif PW is a fake document which can not be relied upon. Another relevant document in this regard is exhibit "PM" showing date of discharge of patient Rehamt Ali as 30-09- 07 from ward No.5. The same does not contain any seal and stamp of Hospital authority.
Complainant has not produced the person who has issued the said document by putting an initial on the same. The document mark "RA", the bed head ticket of Rehmat Ali has not been challenged on behalf of the complainant. So it is crystal clear that Qaiser Hanif PW was not examined by the hospital lab for his blood sample and also that Rehmat Ali never remained admitted in ward No.5 till 30-09-07. Muhammad Akram whose blood sample was examined by the hospital lab and found HCV positive did not appear in the witness box. Exhibit "PC" is the report of blood test of Muhammad Akram with HCV negative issued by Asad Clinic bearing signature of Dr. Irfan Ahmed who was not produced by the complainant in the witness box on the test of cross examination by the counsel for the respondents. Had Muhammad Akram been produced in the Court, his blood sample would have been obtained and got tested from a Heamatologist as well as pathologist either from the King Edward University or Alama Iqbal Medical College Lahore to rule out the existence of HCV/serum artigen-B etc.
8. Complainant has failed to establish that which respondent obtained blood sample and declared the same to be HCV positive. Respondent appearing at seriatim No. 4 namely Khawaja Iftikhar has been mentioned as lab addition whereas as per hospital record he is a Naib Qasid, respondent No. 5 Ishaq has been mentioned Laboratory Assistant who as per hospital record is a barrier whereas respondent No.6 Azam mentioned as Laboratory Assistant is a ward boy. Similarly respondent No. 7 Amjad shown as Laboratory Assistant in the complaint is a Laboratory technician as per hospital record. So the complainant in this respect seems to be confused and he could not specifically attribute the specific role to respondent No. 4 to 7 qua the deficiency of service on their part individually. The allegations of the complainant are based on generality. Counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments laid his more emphasis on the respondent No.2 Dr. Shabir Ahmed who had conducted an inquiry into the allegation of the complainant regarding misconduct of respondent No. 4 to 7 on the direction of respondent No. 1. Respondent No.1 did not come in contact with the complainant or with his patient Rehmat Ali during his stay in the hospital.
Neither he examined the patient nor have any role in the treatment or transfusion of blood to the patient. What respondent No.2 did was compliance of order of his administrator in respect of conducting of an inquiry. He did not render any service to the complainant or his patient therefore no question arises of deficient service on the part of respondent No.2.
9. I have also given my anxious consideration to the point raised by learned counsel for respondent that complainant has no locus standi to file any such claim on behalf his maternal uncle Rehmat Ali. He is not an aggrieved person. Rehmat Ali who remained admitted in hospital is neither a minor nor in-capacitated by law to bring his claim before the Court of law. If for the sack of arguments, it is admitted too, that all which have been alleged had happened, the role of the complainant is one of the witness in the helm of affairs but in no way he can claim to be an aggrieved person. In case of existence of any deficiency in service only Rehmat Ali can be held entitled to receive compensation or damages and complainant can not claim any such relief.
10. The up short of the discussion is that complainant could not succeed to prove his claim which is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.