Death following wrong blood transfusion - part III
What you need to know:
The genesis: A mother died after a blood transfusion. It was later discovered she had been given blood of a group that was not compatible with hers. Her family sued seeking answers and justice.
Court ruled that an insurance company that also provided health services to an expectant mother, and had apparently misclassified her blood group, was not liable for her death. The mother died in Mulago hospital shortly after an operation to remove the baby. During the operation, the mother had been transfused with blood group B+ to which she reacted. Further investigations revealed that her blood group, in reality, was O+. Such a person can only receive an O+ blood during a blood transfusion and no other. The insurance company was, in addition, sued for neglecting their patient while she was in Mulago.
The basis of the case against the insurance company was the antenatal card of the mother on which it was stated that her blood group was O+.
Lawyers for the insurance company told court that there was no evidence brought before court to support the claim that the health workers employed by their client had negligently and wrongly classified the blood group of the mother. The antenatal card did not bear any stamp and there was no indication on the card who actually wrote that the mother’s blood group was B+.
No case found
The judge, therefore, ruled that in this matter it could only have been the deceased who would have known who had endorsed blood group B+ on the card and under what circumstances. It was not also clear to court whether the deceased actually carried out the blood tests ordered by the doctor and having done so why she did not return to the doctor with the results. The doctor attending to the deceased told court, “from the time the deceased’s husband came to see me with his wife I sent them to the labs, I never saw them again. At the time, I next attended to the deceased, the antenatal card was never filled by the midwife. There was no specific information filled in respect to the patient’s blood group.”
Court doubted the authenticity of the antenatal card as it lacked particulars and information relating to the deceased.
The card lacked a registration number as well as the personal details of the deceased apart from her name. The card had no details of the patient’s pregnancy state, and had no details of any physical examination carried out. The card did not also have the result of investigations or other tests done and to court most notably there was no signature of the issuing person or authority.
Something fishy
Court, therefore, found it difficult to believe that the deceased who was reported to be a graduate would have taken possession of such a card with the most pertinent of information missing or unfilled, with an obvious misclassification of her blood group and without a signature and not coming to the realisation as to the effect, impact and consequences of such a state of affairs. In the absence of further evidence, court was unable to resolve the question of who had determined and written on the card that the patient’s blood group as B+.
Court, therefore, ruled that in the circumstances, it could not be assumed that it was the staff of the insurance company who classified the blood group of the deceased as B+, without clear and cogent evidence supporting such a claim. The family of the deceased’s mother therefore failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the insurance company was responsible for the misclassification of the deceased’s blood group.
Court also noted that the insurance company, in a letter to Mulago hospital, committed itself to pay for specific services in respect of the admission of the deceased to the hospital. Court ruled that the enlisted specific services did not include or extend to the provision of blood to Mulago hospital. To court, again, the insurance company was therefore, not negligent in the provision of services to the deceased.
To be continued
