Removal of wrong kidney: NCDRC awards ₹2 crore compensation to patient's family

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held a surgeon guilty of gross medical negligence for removing a woman’s healthy left kidney instead of the diseased right kidney which eventually led to her death [Veer Singh & Ors. v Dr Rajeev Lochan].

A Bench of President AP Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandey awarded the woman's family a total of ₹ 2 crores in compensation. The Commission directed ₹1.5 crore as lump sum compensation for negligence, along with ₹10 lakh to each complainant for loss of love and affection, and ₹1 lakh towards litigation costs.

The amount will carry interest at 6% per annum from February 20, 2014 (the date of the patient’s death) until actual payment, with the rate increasing to 9% in case of default beyond three months.

In its order dated May 18, the Commission explained the fatal consequences of the surgical error.

"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.

The Commission further underscored the gravity of the mistake, saying,

"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."

The case relates to the treatment of one Shanti Devi, who had been diagnosed with severe hydronephrosis in her right kidney in April 2012. Pre-operative ultrasound and imaging reports clearly showed that while the right kidney was diseased, the left kidney was normal. The Commission noted that the surgery was planned for removal of the right kidney.

However, subsequent radiological and CT scan reports conducted in June 2012 after the surgery revealed that the right kidney was still present while the healthy left kidney was missing.

The patient’s ordeal extended for nearly two years after the surgery. Left with the dysfunctional right kidney, she had to undergo repeated dialysis before passing away in 2014.

The Commission linked her prolonged suffering and eventual death directly to the negligent surgery. It noted that the failure to remove the diseased kidney had deprived her of any realistic chance of recovery.

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.

However, the Commission rejected this defence, noting that the surgery had been explicitly planned for the right kidney, and that the doctor himself recorded “right side nephrectomy” in post-operative documents. It further found no evidence of any separate procedure that could explain the absence of the left kidney, concluding that there was no valid explanation for its removal.

Institutional findings also played a key role. The Uttar Pradesh Medical Council had earlier held the doctor negligent, suspended his registration for two years, and recorded that a forged case sheet had been produced. The decision was later upheld by the Medical Council of India.

On the issue of compensation, the Commission acknowledged that the family’s claims were not fully supported by precise calculations, but emphasised that the circumstances justified substantial damages.

"It is correct that the calculations which have been referred to in the prayer clause are not exactly substantiated and are more or less of a guess work, but the fact remains that the patient lost her life in these peculiar circumstances where there is a loss of consortium, loss of love and affection to the children and of course her own contribution as she was only 56 years of age at the time of the incident. Her longevity of life could have been expected had the left kidney remained intact," said the Commision.

Advoates Sudarshan Rajan, Sambhav Sharma and Ria Setiya appeared for the complainant family.

Senior Advocate VK Garg, along with advocates Neeraj Kumar Sharma, KS Rekhi and Parv Garg represented the surgeon.

[Read Order]