Poulomi Hospitals Held Liable For Unauthorized Removal Of Patient's Kidney, Telangana State Commission Orders Rs. 30 Lakhs Compensation

Brief Facts:

Mr. Renukuntla Ravi Raju (“Complainant”) started experiencing severe stomach pain in 2007. Seeking medical attention, he was referred by Kothagudem Govt. Area Hospital to Gandhi Hospital, where he underwent surgery for bladder stones. Post-operation, a doctor left the inner portion open to drain pus, which was subsequently stitched. In 2009, the Complainant, suffering from a hernia, approached the Poulomi Hospitals (“Hospital”) with a 'Rajiv Arogya Sree Health Insurance Card' and underwent various tests, including an ultrasound. The report stated that the Complainant had normal kidneys without any complications. Later a hernia surgery was performed on the Complainant, and he was regularly prescribed medicines. However, in 2011, during an unrelated surgery in Calcutta, it was discovered that his left kidney had been removed in 2009 by the hospital without his knowledge or consent.

In 2012, the Complainant experienced severe stomach pain again and had some medical tests at Kothagudem Area Hospital and Medicare Diagnostic Centre, where he was told that he didn't have a kidney. Later, the Complainant filed a case with the AP State Human Rights Commission which subsequently led to a police investigation which concluded that the hospital was liable for deficiency of service. The report noted that the removal of the left kidney was part of a fraudulent scheme, allowing the hospital to profit by transplanting the kidney into another person. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, Telangana (“State Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the hospital.

In response, the hospital admitted that the Complainant visited the hospital for a hernia treatment but questioned the accuracy of the ultrasound report. It acknowledged that it conducted a hernia surgery on the Complainant but claimed that the ultrasound report showing him not having a left kidney doesn't prove that it was removed by the hospital. Therefore, it prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Observations by the Commission:

The State Commission noted that in 2009, both of the Complainant's kidneys were normal during the hernia treatment at the hospital, which was supported by the ultrasound scan report. The subsequent ultrasound reports from different medical facilities consistently indicated that there was no left kidney in the Complainant's body. Further, the State Commission noted that the hospital failed to present any evidence or documents to counter the Complainant's claims. It observed that the hospital, being a medical expert, should have explained renal atrophy, yet it did not substantiate its contention with adequate evidence or medical literature.

Considering the criminal nature of the acts committed by the hospital, the State Commission focused on compensating the Complainant for the loss and injury suffered. While acknowledging that no amount of compensation could fully restore the Complainant's loss, the State Commission considered factors such as reduced life expectancy, future treatment expenses, loss of future earnings, physical suffering, and mental agony. Despite the lack of detailed earnings information from the Complainant, the State Commission directed the hospital to pay a compensation of Rs. 30 Lakhs to the Complainant. It was further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.