Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My Money
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Two days on, no arrests yet in Phagwara blood bank case

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Advertisement

Jalandhar, February 10

Advertisement

Two days after an FIR lodged against the BTO and the lab technician of the Phagwara blood bank, no arrests have been made so far. The FIR, which includes the detailed probe report of the case, was filed at the Phagwara city police station on Saturday night by the Kapurthala Civil Surgeon following the Chief Minster’s directions issued on Friday.

The police said while checks were carried out in Kapurthala, the suspects had not been arrested yet.

Kapurthala SSP Satinder Singh said: “Raids were carried out at the hospital and other places today. Further investigation was on in the case.”

Advertisement

Blood units no. 179 and 2922 — which were infected with HCV and HBsAG (Hepatitis B) positive blood had been issued to two patients by the blood bank following an inspection by the Drug Department on February 4. The bank, on February 6, had transfused mismatched blood to a 19-year-old patient (B positive blood was transfused to O positive patient).

The blood transfusion officer, Dr Hardeep Singh Sethi, and the lab technician, Ravipal, were booked under Sections 307, 465, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. While entries in the records of the blood bank for blood samples (related to blood unit numbers 179 and 2922) stated that the blood was reactive, the report submitted by the medical board following the rapid and ELISA tests of two donors’ and one recipients’ blood samples ‘confirmed the blood of both donors to be non-reactive’, hence establishing ‘wrong entries’ had been made in the register – yet establishing ‘gross negligence’.

Meanwhile, the patient, 19-year-old Pardeep Yadav, who received transfusion of incompatible blood, continues to be under treatment at the PGI, Chandigarh. His family said his condition was improving.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement