The victim, who was nine years old at the time of his admission to the hospital in July 2000 for treatment of cancer, supposedly has contracted HIV due to transfusion of contaminated blood. His father in 2001 filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking compensation of Rs 25 lakh for the grave mistake. The authorities at AIIMS have denied the charge as baseless, but at the same time they are unwilling to divulge the identity of the donor whose blood was transfused to the victim. The boy was then nine-years-old.
The court is know asking them to explain as to why the hospital is not ready to disclose details of the donor whose blood was transfused into the victim.
Justice Vikramjit Sen while stating that the issue of blood transfusion concerns the public at large, he said, that the medical superintendent needs to explain as to how an hospital can protect a person whose contaminated blood has inflicted HIV in a person.
Justice Sen was perturbed and angered after the AIIMS counsel tried to argue the matter on technical grounds. Objecting to the advocate's arguments, the judge commented that in most of the cases where AIIMS was involved, the hospital would get defensive and refuses to admit the fault. While asking as to why the hospital's counsel were they trying to shield the donor, he remarked, "I agreethat the hospital is of repute and has the best facilities. But it can go wrong somewhere". He further brushed aside the hospital's arguments that the boy must have received the virus through a needle or an intravenous drug. He strongly asked as to whether the councils meant that the nine-year-old boy was on drugs.
According to Anand Grover, boy's advocate the boy was diagnosed with cancer after the Pokhran blasts. They explained that the boy's father works with the BSF and was posted at the border during that time. Mr. Gover further explained that before approaching AIIMS, the boy was admitted in a private hospital in Jaipur. That hospital has they added produced all relevant papers in relation to the treatment.
Terming as "absurd" the plea of AIIMS that the information was confidential, Justice Vikramjit Sen noted that in the present case the issue related to a blood donor and not a patient as there was also no justification for the AIIMS to take shelter under the confidentiality of doctor-patient relation. And he pointed out that here it is the victim who is the patient of the hospital.
When defence team of AIIMS tried to press with the arguments, Justice Sen ordered the personal appearance of the Medical Superintendent to explain further and posted the matter for further hearing to May 11.