Surgeon removed healthy kidney instead of diseased one: NCDRC awards ₹2 crore compensation to family
NEW DELHI: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held a surgeon guilty of gross medical negligence for removing a patient’s healthy left kidney instead of her diseased right kidney, an error that ultimately cost the patient her life. In its order dated May 18, a bench of President AP Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya awarded the family ₹2 crore in total compensation in Veer Singh & Ors. v Dr Rajeev Lochan, as per a report by Bar and Bench.The case concerns Shanti Devi, who was diagnosed with severe hydronephrosis, which is a condition causing dangerous fluid buildup in her right kidney in April 2012.Pre-operative ultrasound and imaging reports clearly established that while the right kidney was diseased, the left kidney was entirely normal. The surgery was planned for removal of the diseased right kidney. However, radiological and CT scan reports taken in June 2012 — after the surgery — revealed that the right kidney was still present, while the healthy left kidney was missing.Left with only her dysfunctional right kidney, Shanti Devi had to undergo repeated dialysis for nearly two years. She passed away on February 20, 2014.What did the NCDRC observed?The Commission directly linked her prolonged suffering and death to the surgical error, observing that had the healthy left kidney not been removed, the patient would have had a genuine chance of survival. As the order stated, with both the removed left kidney and the failed right kidney, she was left with no hope for survival.The Commission further described the error in the starkest terms, calling the removal of the left kidney a medical disaster and a negligence of the highest order.“The removal of the left kidney was a medical disaster and a negligence of the highest order. Had the left kidney remained intact, the patient would have survived longer,” as quoted by Bar and Bench.What was the surgeon’s defence and why was it rejected?The surgeon argued that it was anatomically impossible to remove the left kidney through a right-side incision, and claimed he could not have imagined such an occurrence. The NCDRC rejected this defence. It noted that the surgery had been explicitly planned for the right kidney, and that the surgeon himself had recorded “right side nephrectomy” in post-operative documents. The Commission found no evidence of any separate procedure that could explain the absence of the left kidney.“Had the left kidney remained intact and had not been removed by the OP (surgeon), the same would have helped in the survival of the patient, but with its removal and the right failed kidney, the complainant had no hope for survival. This act and negligence of the OP therefore deserves to be heavily compensated, “the order said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.
Do you believe that the surgeon actions were a clear case of negligence?
Institutional findings reinforced this conclusion. The Uttar Pradesh Medical Council had earlier found the doctor negligent, suspended his medical registration for two years, and recorded that a forged case sheet had been produced in the matter. That finding was subsequently upheld by the Medical Council of India.The Commission acknowledged that the family’s claims were not fully supported by precise monetary calculations, but held that the circumstances — the patient’s age of 56, the irreversible nature of the harm, the loss of consortium, and the direct causal link between the negligence and her death — justified substantial damages.Can patients sue hospitals for negligence?Yes. Patients or their families can pursue action through consumer commissions under the Consumer Protection Act; civil courts seeking damages; criminal complaints in cases of extreme negligence; and medical councils for disciplinary action against the doctor.
