New Delhi: A probe into the death of 36-year-old dengue patient Pradeep Pandey at a Prayagraj hospital earlier this month has revealed that the patient had been transfused with “poorly preserved platelets” and not ‘Mosambi juice’; an allegation which had been made by his family and had been shared widely on social media, including by Uttar Pradesh deputy chief minister Brajesh Pathak.

Pandey was admitted with dengue to the Global Hospital and Trauma Centre in Prayagraj on October 14. On October 17, as his condition worsened, he had to be transfused with platelets. However, during the procedure, his condition reportedly deteriorated further and he needed to be transferred to a different hospital.

On October 19, after being moved to a different hospital, he passed away.

Following his death, videos of the incident were being circulated on social media along with claims that he had been administered ‘mosambi juice’ instead of platelets, sparking outrage. On October 20, Pathak tweeted about the incident, calling for a probe and the testing of the spurious platelet samples.

That day, the Global Hospital and Trauma Centre was sealed by the police.

According to a report in the Quint, a three-member committee comprising the sub-divisional magistrate, circle officer, and deputy chief medical officer, has now submitted its report on the incident to Prayagraj district magistrate Sanjay Khatri, who revealed that the purported mosambi juice was, in reality, poorly preserved platelets. 

However, Khatri also revealed that some medicines were administered to Pandey which were “not according to the prescribed guidelines”, noting that the circle officer is taking separate action against the same.

When news of the incident initially broke, Sourabh Mishra, owner of the Global Hospital and Trauma Centre, had denied the victim’s family’s allegations of wrongdoing, saying that they had sourced the ‘platelet’ packets themselves. 

“They brought five units of platelets from SRN Hospital. After transfusion of three units, the patient had a reaction. So we stopped it,” he had said.

He had also claimed that the packets of spurious platelets also bore the logo of ‘SRN’ hospital.

Demolition order stayed

The week after the news of the incident broke, the hospital was sent a demolition notice by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA), alleging illegal construction. The notice claimed that the demolition order had been passed in January this year and that the owners of the building had not replied to previous notices.

Also read: Demolition Notice Issued To UP Hospital Where Patient Died After Being Transfused With Juice

As such, it ordered for the building to be vacated by October 28.

However, the demolition order was challenged in the Allahabad high court by Malati Devi, the owner of the building, according to a report in the Times of India. According to the petition, Devi had leased out a portion of the building to one Shyam Narayan for the purposes of running the hospital and that Devi herself lived in the building, one floor above the hospital.

With regards to the PDA allegations that she had not responded to the notices pursuant to the January 2022 demolition order, the petitioner submitted that she had not been served either the demolition order nor any subsequent notices.

Further, the petitioner noted that she is ready to submit an objection to the demolition notice as well as a map of the house for inspection by a competent authority. If any part of the house is found to be illegal, the petitioner sought an opportunity for compounding and if any portion is found to be not compoundable, then the PDA may take legal action.

Compounding is the process by which an offending party accepts the commission of an offence before an authority and pleads for a pardon.

As the court is currently closed for Diwali vacations and will only open on October 31, the petition was heard in chambers. Justices Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Vikas Budhwar dismissed the petition while giving liberty to the petitioner to file her objections, along with grievances and a map of the property, to the PDA.

The court further directed the PDA to examine the petitioner's submissions and grievances and give a ruling on the matter within four weeks, while also mandating that the authority give the petitioner enough time to file a compounding application if the need arises.

As such, the court granted the petitioner protection from coercive action for a period of six weeks. 

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.