JUDGEMENT
Notwithstanding much education that has gone into reversing peoples attitude towards persons living with the HIV virus, much results cannot be said to have been achieved as evidenced by persistent stigmatization in society. The prejudice that attends with the labelling of a person as HIV positive with its resultant discrimination and being avoided as if a mere handshake alone portends profound disaster for one like the contraction of an ebola virus makes any accusation against a person as an HIV positive person not a light one to be ignored. Sensing the debilitating smoke of rumours of being HIV positive at the National Blood Service Korle Bu Teaching Hospital, where he worked as a driver and claiming the source of that rumours to be that of 1st Defendant, the very head of the National Blood Service, the institution responsible for replenishing the stock of blood for use, Plaintiff conceived and birthed the writ on the 11th of May, 2017, which was later amended seeking the following reliefs:
1. Compensation in the sum of Gh¢200,000 for the anxiety, trauma, ridicule, mental breakdown and emotional distress Plaintiff suffered at the instance of the Defendants.
2. An apology to the Plaintiff with copies pasted at the Notice Board of national Blood Service and placed on his personal file and the National Blood Service.
3. Damages for breach of duty of care
4. Cost on full indemnity basis including legal cost.
5. Any other relief(s) the court may deem fit.
Plaintiff who claim to be a driver who personally drives 1st Defendant donated blood on the 25th of July, 2014 in a blood donation exercise but was subsequently invited by 1st Defendant who informed him that he was HIV positive and challenged him to undertake a second test if Plaintiff doubted the test results of the staff donation exercise. Having accepted the challenge thrown to him to bite the bullet of undertaking another test which was performed, he avers that 1st Defendant called to tell him that she has been told of the results of the second and that she [1st Defendant] doubt the negative results from the Reference Laboratory and was told that he had been relieved of his work as the personal driver of 1st Defendant.
That 1st Defendant again invited him to undertake yet another test at the Central Laboratory which he submitted himself the results again showed non-reactive for HIV. That for 1st Defendant having told him that he was HIV positive and which she broadcast to everyone
