No evidence patient suffered thrombophlebitis due to wrong cannulation- Consumer court junks Rs 19.9 lakh claim against hospital

Mysore: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Mysore, recently exonerated a hospital accused of medical negligence during the treatment of a patient, who allegedly developed Thrombophlebitis after undergoing a blood transfusion at the facility.

Even though the patient alleged that she had to suffer a lot due to wrong cannulation by the unskilled staff of the hospital, the Commission observed that no evidence was produced by the complainant to show that she had suffered infection due to the wrong cannulation. There was no document to show that the patient suffered any disability due to the wrong cannulation and was unable to do daily activities.

In May, 2025, the patient visited the treating hospital with a complaint of tiredness and weakness. The Duty Doctor (General Physician) was consulted, and the complainant/patient was advised for blood tests to diagnose the cause.

She underwent routine blood tests, and the reports suggested as Anaemic (Low HB). The Duty Doctor at the treating hospital suggested an urgent blood transfusion of 2 units. Accordingly, the complainant underwent a blood transfusion of one unit in the right hand, and soon, she developed swelling and pain in the hand. Thereafter, the nurse removed the cannula from the right hand and transfused blood through the left hand.

On the following day, the patient developed blood clots of bluish colour in the forearm. So, she again visited the hospital on the same day for the treatment of the condition, where the said doctor allegedly told her that there was no harm and the infection would go away on its own. The patient was prescribed some painkillers. The next day, the second unit of blood transfusion was done in the left hand. However, the infection in the right hand persisted, and the doctor, when informed, advised her to continue the same prescribed medicines.

Allegedly, the following day, the infection exacerbated with more swelling, redness, inflammation, and severe pain and spread to the whole right hand, including the forearm.

Since the infection continued, the patient approached an Internal Medicine expert at a Mysore-based hospital for a second opinion. The complainant was advised to get admitted as an inpatient, and the infection was diagnosed as Thrombophlebitis. In the discharge summary, the reason for infection was mentioned as "Due to wrong cannulation" while receiving a blood transfusion.

Consequently, the patient allegedly underwent treatment at the second hospital for 3 days, underwent several tests, costly treatment with medications and had to spend a lot of money to recover from this infection.

Filing the consumer complaint, the patient alleged that due to negligence of an inappropriate execution of task of administrating blood transfusion in an incorrect anatomical location by the treating hospital's nursing staff and without monitoring by the duty doctor, she had to suffer a LifeThreatening Allergic Reaction which could have been proved fatal with permanent disability and also could have caused autoimmune diseases or cancer, if it had not treated on time.

Arguing that the complainant had to undergo a lot of trauma, exorbitant pain, mental agony, apprehension of life, anxiety, depression etc., besides monetary burden, due to the hospital's gross medical negligence and deficient services, she demanded compensation. It was also submitted that due to the hospital's negligence, she became physically incompetent to carry out her chores and daily routine activities effectively with persistent pain and for being unable to lift her right hand.

On the other hand, the treating hospital submitted that the consent was taken from the patient for blood transfusion, and she was also informed about the complications that may arise during the transfusion, including the transmission infections allergic reactions and all the questions asked by the patients and their attendants were answered in their understandable language.

The hospital claimed that before transfusion, asepsis precautions were followed and proper communication techniques were used. The hospital stated that thrombophlebitis is a common complications which may arise during a simple procedure like IV cannulation, which may occur in patients where veins are fragile or in patients with poor tissue healing and dehydration.

It was further submitted that since the patient developed pain, immediately, the cannulation site was changed and put on the other hand. Painkillers were also prescribed, submitted the hospital, further adding that had the patient followed up further, the hospital would have managed thrombophlebitis, which is most common complication during cannulation, which is not grievous hurt and not medical negligence.

The hospital also submitted that all the precautions were taken in order to give proper medication to the patient. However, the complainant herself sought discharge.

Observations by the consumer court:

The Commission observed that no document was produced by the complainant to show that she had suffered infection as per the photos marked due to the wrong cannulation.

"The photos produced by the complainant are after taking treatment in the Hospital. The treatment given by the Hospital to the complainant is towards the disease of Severe Anaemic and Thrombophebitis. No document produced by the complainant to show that she is unable to lift her right hand and she is unable to carry out her daily activities and she was advised for complete bed rest for 30 days and not attending the college," observed the consumer court.

Further, the Commission noted that after taking in-patient treatment at the second hospital, the complainant has been doing blood tests regularly. However, "The doctor has not issued any certificate about the disability the complainant is suffering from due to the wrong cannulation done in the opposite party hospital. The complainant cannot assume and presume the things. As such the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service or medical negligence by the opposite party hospital. Hence, we answer this point in the Negative."

Accordingly, the consumer court denied granting compensation to the complainant and ordered, "The complainant has not sought the medical expenses spent in the Molecular care. However, what is to be considered here is the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service or medical negligence by the opposite party. When such is the case the complainant is not entitled for the relief sought. Hence, we answer this point in the Negative."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/04/mysore-hospital-no-med-neg-357772.pdf

Also Read:HC Quashes Case Against Gynaecologist, Finds No Medical Negligence in Newborn Injury Case