DCDRC finds no evidence linking thrombophlebitis to alleged wrong cannulation, rejects patient’s compensation claim
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Mysore, has dismissed a medical negligence complaint against a hospital accused of causing thrombophlebitis following a blood transfusion, holding that the complainant failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish deficiency in service or negligence.
The Commission observed that although the patient alleged she developed complications due to improper cannulation by unskilled hospital staff, no medical evidence was placed on record to prove that the hospital’s treatment directly caused the condition or resulted in any permanent disability.
Patient Alleged Wrong Cannulation During Blood Transfusion
According to the complaint, the patient visited the hospital in May 2025 with complaints of weakness and fatigue. After undergoing blood investigations, she was diagnosed with severe anaemia (low haemoglobin) and was advised to receive two units of blood.
During the transfusion of the first unit through her right hand, she allegedly developed pain and swelling. Hospital staff subsequently removed the cannula and continued the transfusion through her left hand.
The patient claimed that by the following day she developed bluish blood clots and swelling in her right forearm. Although she revisited the hospital, she alleged that doctors assured her the condition would resolve on its own and prescribed painkillers.
Despite undergoing the second blood transfusion through the left hand, she claimed the swelling, redness and pain in the right hand worsened over the next few days.
Second Hospital Diagnosed Thrombophlebitis
As her symptoms persisted, the patient sought treatment at another hospital in Mysore, where she was admitted for three days.
According to the complaint, doctors diagnosed her with thrombophlebitis, and the discharge summary reportedly mentioned that the condition developed due to “wrong cannulation” during blood transfusion.
The patient alleged that she had to undergo costly treatment and suffered severe physical pain, mental agony and financial loss due to the hospital’s negligence.
She further claimed that the alleged negligence left her unable to perform routine daily activities and caused persistent pain in her right arm.
Hospital Denied Medical Negligence
The treating hospital denied all allegations, stating that informed consent had been obtained before the blood transfusion and that the patient had been informed about possible complications, including allergic reactions and infections.
The hospital submitted that all aseptic precautions were followed during cannulation and blood transfusion.
According to the hospital, thrombophlebitis is a known and common complication of intravenous cannulation, particularly in patients with fragile veins, dehydration or poor tissue healing.
It further argued that when the patient complained of pain, the cannulation site was immediately changed to the opposite hand and appropriate medicines were prescribed.
The hospital maintained that if the patient had continued follow-up treatment, the condition could have been managed effectively and that the complication did not amount to medical negligence.
Consumer Commission Finds No Evidence of Negligence
After examining the material on record, the Consumer Commission observed that the complainant failed to establish a direct link between the alleged wrong cannulation and the subsequent infection.
The Commission noted that the photographs produced by the complainant were taken after treatment and did not establish negligence by the hospital.
It further observed that no medical records or disability certificate had been produced to demonstrate that the patient had suffered permanent disability, loss of function, or inability to perform daily activities because of the alleged wrong cannulation.
The Commission also noted that although the patient continued undergoing blood investigations after discharge from the second hospital, no treating doctor had certified any long-term disability resulting from the incident.
Compensation Claim Rejected
Holding that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service or medical negligence, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint and rejected the claim for compensation.
The Commission observed that mere allegations and assumptions, without supporting medical evidence, were insufficient to establish negligence under consumer protection law. As a result, the patient was held not entitled to the relief sought.
