The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has delivered a significant ruling, finding a surgeon accountable for severe medical negligence. This decision follows a tragic surgical error where a woman’s healthy left kidney was removed instead of her diseased right kidney, ultimately leading to her demise. The case, titled Veer Singh & Ors. v Dr Rajeev Lochan, resulted in a ₹2 crore compensation award to the deceased’s family.
A bench comprising President A.P. Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandey adjudicated the matter, directing a lump sum compensation of ₹1.5 crore for the negligence. Additionally, each complainant was granted ₹10 lakh for the loss of love and affection, along with ₹1 lakh allocated for litigation expenses. The Commission stipulated an interest rate of 6% per annum on the compensation amount from February 20, 2014, the date of the patient’s passing, with an increase to 9% should there be a delay in payment beyond three months.
In its order dated May 18, the Commission emphasized the severe repercussions of the surgical error. The order stated, “Had the left kidney remained intact and not been removed by the operating surgeon, it could have aided in the patient’s survival. The removal of the healthy kidney, combined with the existing failure of the right kidney, left no hope for survival. This act of negligence warrants substantial compensation.”
The case revolves around Shanti Devi, who was diagnosed with severe hydronephrosis in her right kidney in April 2012. Pre-operative reports had clearly indicated that while the right kidney was diseased, the left kidney was functioning normally. Despite surgery being planned for the removal of the right kidney, subsequent imaging in June 2012 revealed that the right kidney remained, whereas the healthy left kidney was missing.
Shanti Devi endured nearly two years of distress following the surgery, enduring repeated dialysis sessions before her eventual death in 2014. The Commission directly linked her prolonged suffering and subsequent death to the negligent surgery, highlighting the missed opportunity for recovery had the diseased kidney been removed.
More Read
The surgeon contested the charge, claiming it was anatomically impossible to remove the left kidney via a right-side incision, asserting he could not have foreseen such an outcome. However, the Commission dismissed this defense, noting that the surgery was specifically planned for the right kidney, and the surgeon had documented a “right side nephrectomy” in post-operative records. No evidence was found to justify the absence of the left kidney.
The Uttar Pradesh Medical Council previously found the doctor culpable, suspending his registration for two years, a decision later upheld by the Medical Council of India. It was also noted that a forged case sheet had been submitted in defense.
While acknowledging that the family’s compensation claims lacked precise calculations, the Commission underscored the necessity for significant damages given the circumstances. It highlighted the loss of consortium and the emotional and financial impact on the family, as Shanti Devi was 56 years old at her passing, with potential longevity had her healthy kidney remained intact.
More Read
The complainant family was represented by Advocates Sudarshan Rajan, Sambhav Sharma, and Ria Setiya. Senior Advocate V.K. Garg, along with Advocates Neeraj Kumar Sharma, K.S. Rekhi, and Parv Garg, appeared for the surgeon.
