Supreme Court to hear woman’s plea on ‘HIV via transfusion’ | india-news | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Nov 20, 2017-Monday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Supreme Court to hear woman’s plea on ‘HIV via transfusion’

A Mumbai-based women has sought compensation from a doctor alleging that during treatment he transfused HIV-infected blood during her pregnancy that led to the death of her five-month-old child twenty years ago.

india Updated: Jan 10, 2017 01:22 IST
Bhadra Sinha
A Mumbai-based women has sought compensation from a doctor alleging that during treatment he transfused HIV-infected blood during her pregnancy that led to the death of her five-month-old child twenty years ago.
A Mumbai-based women has sought compensation from a doctor alleging that during treatment he transfused HIV-infected blood during her pregnancy that led to the death of her five-month-old child twenty years ago.(AP Photo/ Representative photo)

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a petition filed by a Mumbai-based woman seeking a higher compensation from the doctor — who while treating her during pregnancy — had allegedly transfused HIV-infected blood that led to the death of her five-month-old child twenty years ago.

Appealing against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), the woman said the panel had erroneously given her Rs 5 lakh compensation and directed the doctor to pay Rs 12,000 every month till her lifetime.

She has also demanded a compensation of Rs 19.78 lakh and a declaration from the top court that both the doctor and the blood bank were responsible for giving her contaminated blood after she was operated upon on January 21, 1997.

A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur issued notices to the doctor and the owner of the blood bank seeking their responses. The doctor has already challenged the commission’s order that indicted them for not obtaining consent from the woman or her husband.

In her petition, prepared by Lawyers’ Collective, the woman complained that the commission’s view was against the medical evidence she had produced. She was HIV negative during her pregnancy and the factum of HIV was established in her and the child within four months of the delivery.