THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION (SHRI TASLIMUDDIN)
(a) : No Sir. As per the information made available by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (SCDRC), Delhi, no case regarding âcompensation for death due to infected
bloodâ has been decided by the NCDRC and SCDRC, Delhi recently. However, two (2)
cases have been decided by the SCDRC, Delhi for granting compensation to the consumers
due to infected blood transfusion and not compensation for death due to blood transfusion
recently.
(b) : The brief details of the cases decided by SCDRC, Delhi are as under:
1. Complaint No.3/2006 dated 15.01.2007 â Smt. Harbans Kaur Chawla Vs. Escorts
Heart Institute & Research Centre â the SCDRC, Delhi held hospital liable for deficiency
in service or negligence and directed the hospital to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
Against the said decision of SCDRC, Delhi, an appeal has been filed before the NCDRC on 5.3.2007and the same is listed for hearing on 21.3.2007.
2. Complaint No. 101/1992 dated 13.2.2006 â Naresh Kumar Vs. Sunil Blood Bank &
Transfusion Centre â the SCDRC, Delhi has awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the
complainant against selling of contaminated blood sample and not selling the blood in the
manner provided under Rule 96 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, framed under
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
(c) : The Government can not intervene/interfere in the judicial process/orders.
However, the aggrieved party is free to invoke legal remedy available within the
framework of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in filing appeal/revision etc. before the
next higher Forum.