National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Veer Singh & 4 Ors. vs Dr. Rajeev Lochan on 18 May, 2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT NEW DELHI
NC/CC/281/2014
WITH
NC/IA/2480/2018(CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE REJOINDER)
NC/IA/2481/2018(CONDONATION OF DELAY)
NC/IA/2482/2018(CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE EVIDENCE)
NC/IA/5108/2021(PLACING ADDL. DOCUMENTS)
Veer Singh & Ors. ... Complainants
Versus
Dr. Rajeev Lochan ... Opp. Party
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
Appeared at the time of arguments:
For Complainants : Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Advocate
Mr. Sambhav Sharma, Advocate
Ms. Ria Setiya, Advocate
For the OP : Mr. V.K. Garg, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mr. K. S. Rekhi, Advocate
Mr. Parv Garg, Advocate
Pronounced on: 18th May 2026
ORDER
JUSTICE A. P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
1. This complaint has been instituted by the family members of the deceased late Smt. Shanti Devi where the allegation made is of a very serious dimension about the removal of a left kidney of the deceased patient, who had been diagnosed for hydronephrosis of a right kidney. The complainants have relied on evidence that shall be discussed hereinafter, but NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 1 what is more peculiar is the defence which has been set up by the opposite party in response to this complaint. We shall therefore first embark upon the preliminary facts that led to the surgery and then the complications that developed whereafter the patient left for her heavenly abode.
2. The complainant complained of pain in her abdomen and visited the OP in his Ashirwad Nursing Home on 17.04.2012. The OP is a Surgeon and he diagnosed her with symptoms relating to her right kidney. The prescription dated 17.04.2012 also records and advice of certain tests to be carried out. On 18.04.2012, an X-ray KUB region was carried out. An ultrasonography was also carried out and a report of the same rendered by the OP himself is extracted hereinunder:
LOCHAN ULTRASOUND Patient : SHANTI DEVI AGE: .... SEX :F Ref. Dr. : SELF CLINICAL HISTORY:
DATE: 18-04-2012
ABDOMEN REPORT
Real time USG of abdomen and pelvis reveals -
- Liver appears normal in size and shape, contour and echopattern. There is no evidence of any focal lesion seen on the parenchyma. Intra-hepatic vascular and biliary radicles appear normal. ............ vein and common bile duct are normal.
- Gall bladder is physiologically distended. The wall, thickness is normal. There is no evidence of any intraluminal mass lesion or calculi seen NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 2
- Pancreas is normal in size, shape and .............. lesion seen. Pancreatic duct is not dilated.
- Spleen shows normal size, shape and homogeneous echopattern.
No focal lesion is seen in parenchyma
- Both the kidneys are normal in size, shape, position and axis. Parenchymal echopattern is normal bilaterally. No focal solid or cystic lesion is seen. There is evidence of severe hydronephrosis on right side, adv-IVP. Right kidney measures 106.9mm x 47.3mm.
Left kidney measures 120.4mm x 47.2mm.
- Urinary bladder is normal in size, shape, and contour. No intra-luminal lesion seen.
- Uterus and both ovaries are normal in size, shape and echopattern. No focal lesion is seen. Bilateral adnexal regions are normal.
- There is no evidence of ascites or para-aortic adenopathy seen. Retroperitoneal structure appear normal.
IMPRESSION - Right sided hydronephrosis, adv-IVP.
3. On 19.04.2012, an intravenous Urogram was carried out at a Diagnostic Centre the report whereof is extracted hereinunder:
NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 3
4. The complainant on 05.05.2012 visited the OP at his nursing home who again wrote down a prescription and on his advice on the next day, the patient was admitted for removal of the right kidney.
5. The surgery was accordingly performed on 06.05.2012 and on 07.05.2012, the patient was referred for dialysis to Varun Hospital. According to the complainant, the patient was advised to undertake this dialysis as a necessity after the right sided nephrectomy had been performed. This referral letter dated 07.05.2012 has a significance and is therefore extracted hereinunder:
NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 4 This records that a right side nephrectomy was done.
NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 5
6. The kidney that was removed was sent for histopathological reports to Dr. Sanjay Aggarwal at Dr. Sanjay Patholab and the histopathological report dated 08.05.2012 is extracted hereinunder:
A clear impression was given that the kidney is benign.
NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 6
7. The patient was then put on dialysis and was being treated at Varun Hospital. However, on account of her continued ailment, she visited City Hospital where her radiological examination was conducted of the KUB region on 05.06.2012. The same is extracted hereinunder:
NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 7
8. On 08.06.2012, a CT scan was conducted at MRI & CT Scan centre and the following report was given:
NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 8
9. A perusal of both these documents indicates that the right kidney was found to be in normal position with indications about the same having marked hydronephrosis with decreased cortical thickness, but surprisingly both these reports indicated that the left kidney was not visual.
10. The complainants have alleged that there was no improvement of the medical condition of the patient and that she was unable to pass urine as a result of which these tests were carried out and to the utter shock and dismay of the complainants, it was discovered that instead of the right kidney infected with hydronephrosis that had to be removed, the normal and healthy left kidney of the patient had been removed by the OP.
11. An FIR of criminal negligence was lodged on 16.06.2012 under Section 326 IPC at Police Station Kawarasi, Ramghat Road, Aligarh, later on converted into an FIR under Section 338 IPC.
12. In view of the legal position then existing, the criminal prosecution had to be initiated only after obtaining a medical report as a result whereof the Chief Medical Officer of the District constituted a medical board that tendered its report on 18.07.2012. The said enquiry report is extracted hereinunder:
NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 9 NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 10 NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 11 NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 12 NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 13
13. The Committee comprised of Professor Dr. Arvind Trivedi of the Nephrology Department of Medical College, Meerut and Dr. Abhishek Jain, Lecturer in the same Medical College in the Department of Surgery and Urology.
14. Accordingly, with the submission of the said report indicating that the dysfunctional kidney of the right side was still intact and the left kidney had been removed, a chargesheet was submitted in the criminal case. The OP preferred Writ Petition No. 8742/2012 before the High Court of Allahabad assailing the same which was dismissed on 26.11.2012.
15. The matter was also reported to the Uttar Pradesh Medical Council regarding the conduct of the OP and an order was passed on 12.03.2013 holding the OP to be negligent, not only for having removed the left normal kidney of the patient instead of the right kidney, but also for having submitted a forged case sheet in support of his defence. The OP was suspended of his medical registration for two years and his name was to be struck off from the register of the UP Medical Council. The order dated 12.03.2013 is extracted hereinunder:
NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 14 NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 15 NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 16 NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 17 NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 18
16. The patient was struggling with her ailing right kidney and she ultimately on account of the excessive dialysis and all the treatment she had to undertake, she died of severe hyperkalemia coupled with hypoglycemia on 20.02.2014.
17. The present complaint was filed on 05.08.2014 complaining of gross medical negligence and an unfair practice on the part of the OP in which notices were issued on 27.03.2015 after admitting the complaint. The OP was granted time to file response who defaulted, but on the issue of filing of the written statement, the matter was taken up on 26.09.2016 before the Apex Court where with the consent of parties, and on payment of Rs.
75,000/- as costs, the written statement of the OP was directed to be taken on record with time to the complainant to file rejoinder. The complaint remained pending for one reason or the other, but could not be disposed off with adjournments with the Covid intervening. The complaint finally came up before us on 04.05.2026 when we heard the learned counsel for the parties.
18. Along with the written statement, the OP filed certain documents based on the averments contained in the written statement. One of the documents brought on record requires reference which is the order passed by the Medical Council of India on appeal by the OP whereby the order passed by the U.P. Medical Council was confirmed. The order dated 24.10.2014 is extracted hereinunder:
NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 19 NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 20 NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 21 NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 22
19. Another document which is relevant for the controversy, and has been filed along with the application for additional documents, is the post-mortem report of the deceased patient wherein learned counsel for the OP has pointed out towards the status of the lungs indicating them to be congested. Cause of death has been shown as shock and septicaemia.
20. A rejoinder has also been filed to the reply whereafter written submissions have been filed by the OP that is on record.
21. Learned counsel for the complainant advancing his submissions urged that this is an open and shut case which demonstrates that the OP was not only negligent, but has performed his job unethically by removing the left kidney of the deceased patient instead of the right one that was diagnosed by him to be dysfunctional. For reasons best known that remained unexplained. The said act of negligence is admitted by the OP in the reply itself and supported with the medical expert reports of the expert body constituted by the Chief Medical Officer, the decision of the U.P. Medical Council and the decision of the Medical Council of India. There is no doubt about the negligent act of the OP and hence the complaint deserves to be allowed in the terms prayed for.
22. Learned counsel has relied on paragraphs 33 and 34 of the decision in the case of Harnek Singh & Ors. Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors., (2022) 7 SCC 685 urging that the findings recorded in the order recorded by the Medical Council of India have great relevance and therefore ought to be taken into account.
NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 23
23. Coming to the claim of quantum, learned counsel submits that this horrendous act performed by the OP deserves to be heavily compensated keeping in view the status of the deceased and her family and the loss suffered by them. Learned counsel has pressed for the reliefs and the amount as prayed for in the prayer clause.
24. Learned senior counsel appearing for the OP, Mr. Garg has urged that there is no admission by the OP in the written statement as alleged, and the circumstances in which the surgery was performed does not amount to a negligence. He has however emphasized that the allegations about the extraction of the left kidney through a right incision on the patient's flank was impossible for which the learned counsel has tried to explain the same with anatomical diagrams filed along with the additional documents as also the averments contained in the reply as well as the written arguments filed by him. He has further relied on a sort of an opinion / certification given by the Association of Surgeons that has been filed as Annexure R2 to the reply. The same is extracted hereinunder:
NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 24 NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 25
25. Learned counsel has also relied on a report of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences dated 03.06.2015 in some other case contending that in a similar situation, the AIIMS found that the two kidneys were so grossly enlarged and were fused together as such the removal of one of the kidneys did not amount to any negligence. He therefore submits that in the present case also, this is somewhat a similar situation and consequently in view of the aforesaid evidence led, the expert medical reports as relied on by the complainants should be rejected. Learned counsel has read the enquiry report as well as the prescriptions and the orders of the Medical Council and the post-mortem report to substantiate his submissions. He has also read out from Campbell's Urology Textbook to urge that the anatomy of the human body did not permit or rather it is impossible to carry out the surgery for removal of the left kidney with an incision on the right side.
26. Learned counsel has also pointed out to an Ultrasound report dated 24.04.2012 to contend that the diagnosis made by the OP about the right kidney was correct and that the OP has not committed any act of negligence. He has then countered the submissions on quantum by urging that the allegations made in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the complaint are unsubstantiated by any material and the hospital expenses claimed on the basis of the bills that have been appended, total to Rs. 6,57,600/- only, whereas the claim is of Rs. 1 Crores. He submits that the other claims on account of disability and the other reliefs prayed for have been made without NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 26 any basis and consequently the quantum is imaginary and cannot be granted in the absence of any appropriate or reasonable claim.
27. Learned counsel emphasized that the OP could not have imagined about having removed the left kidney and the allegation is therefore unfounded.
28. He has also raised issues of limitation in the filing of the complaint and it is urged that in view of the literature relied on as well as the explanation given, the legal position has also been answered in favour of the OP for which he relies on the following decisions:
i. Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 ii. Bijoy Sinha Roy vs. Biswanath Das, (2018) 13 SCC 224 iii. Arun Kumar Manglik vs. Chirayu Health and Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., (2019) 7 SCC 401 iv. Maharaja Agrasen Hospital vs. Rishabh Sharma, (2020) 6 SCC 501 v. Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana vs. Joginder Singh, Civil Appeal No. 7380 of 2009 vi. Balram Prasad vs. Kunal Saha, (2014) 1 SCC 384 vii. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 viii. Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande, (2017) 3 SCC 351 ix. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur, 2020 SCC Online SC 410 NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 27
29. Having considered the submissions raised, we have no doubt in our mind that this is one of those gravest forms of negligence that is rarely witnessed for a judicial approximation before Courts and Tribunals. The fact of the surgery conducted on 06.05.2012 is nowhere disputed by the OP. The defence taken by the OP is very peculiar to the effect that the OP had incised the right flank of the patient for extracting the right kidney and then goes on to say something which, in our opinion, is a clear admission of this negligence with a strange unpalatable defence as contained in paragraph 15(i) of the reply extracted hereinunder:
i. Admittedly, a right sided incision was made but the left kidney was removed. However, no intent cannot be imputed to this action of the respondent in as much as if something is medically impossible, the state of mind of the doctor was bound to be such that no further checking of the kidney was required. Hence, at the time of removal, the Respondent could not have even imagined that this medical impossibility could have happened in this case or at his hands, and hence did not question the correctness of the kidney so removed. The kidney removed from the body of Smt. Shanti Devi was then immediately sent for histopathological examination.
30. A perusal of the said response by the OP leaves no room for doubt that the left kidney had been removed in spite of the fact that the entire diagnosis, prognosis, treatment and the subject matter of histopathology was the right kidney. This description was not only clearly recorded in the prescription of the OP, but it is also clear from the Radiological and Scan reports that have been extracted above confirming that both the kidneys at the pre-operative stage were clearly intact in their place, one on the left side and the other on the right side. The infected kidney was the right kidney for which the surgery NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 28 was planned and it stands confirmed from the case sheet diagnosis that it was the right side hydronephrosis that was to be treated by surgery. While referring for dialysis on 07.05.2012, the prescription also states "right side nephrectomy".
31. There is no explanation by the OP as to how did the left side kidney went missing when there was only one surgery performed and there is no evidence of any other surgery for removal of the left kidney. The pre- operative test confirmed the existence of both the kidneys separately with no adverse symptoms in the left kidney. There was therefore no occasion for the OP at all to remove the left side kidney. Even though principles of res ipsa loquitur are not commonly attracted in medical matters, but this is one of those cases where it was only the OP who performed the surgery with a right incision that resulted in the removal of the left side kidney.
32. It is here that the enquiry report dated 18.07.2012, after having heard the OP made a very convincing observation on the expert opinion, and the argument of the OP about the impossibility of conducting left nephrectomy through a right side incision, and went on to observe as follows:
.... Expert opinion of senior urological panel can be taken on the averment of Dr. Rajeev Lochan that it is not possible to conduct Left Nephrectomy through right side incision but here it is also necessary to mention that even after planned and elective surgery called Right Nephrectomy after right side incision, Right Hydronephrotic kidney is in its place and the left kidney has become absent.
33. The matter does not rest there. The OP has referred to the opinion of the Association of Surgeons that has been relied on by the learned counsel NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 29 to urge that the left kidney cannot be operated from the right side neither here nor anywhere. We fail to understand the medical relevance of this sort of a typed opinion having any authentic value, that too even by an alleged company of Surgeons known as an Association of Surgeons at Aligarh, which bears no less than 19 signatures of doctors. We are surprised at such an opinion for which there is no supporting material except the argument of the learned senior counsel that given the human anatomy and the positioning of the kidneys, it is not possible to remove the left kidney from an incision of the right side. This argument is untenable in the absence of any cogent evidence. The certificate is not possessed of any probative evidentiary value as the same is not supported by any expert evidence. None of the doctors who have signed the certificate have filed their affidavit to support the same. We may reiterate that it was for the OP to explain as to how the left kidney vanished when it was very much in existence prior to surgery. In fact, it did not vanish and according to the own admission of the OP coupled with the explanation in his reply quoted above, the left side kidney was removed by the OP for which he seems to have no valid explanation.
34. We now come to the order of the U.P. Medical Council dated 12.03.2013. A perusal of the same would indicate that the OP was held to be fully aware of the patient's kidneys being perfectly placed on both sides and that the right side kidney was not functional. The U.P. Medical Council has categorically recorded that the OP had no explanation as to how the left kidney was removed and that he never attempted to ascertain whether it was NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 30 the left or the right kidney. This finding in itself, in our opinion, is a clear finding of gross negligence that a qualified doctor was unable to ascertain whether he was removing the right or the left kidney when he had clearly planned the removal of the right kidney only. The pre-operative tests were neither confusing nor was there any ambiguity in the location of the two kidneys. There was no overlapping or any fusion as was sought to be impressed upon by the learned senior counsel with the help of the report of AIIMS in some other case. We find that the said illustration is nowhere similar to the present case. The learned senior counsel therefore could not explain as to how the Association of Surgeons gave such an opinion without even examining the process of the surgery as discussed hereinabove.
35. We therefore find that the decision of the U.P. Medical Council and its findings recorded has gone unrebutted and consequently the said opinion of the U.P. Medical Council is of relevance and gets legal support with the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Harnek Singh & Ors. Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors. (supra). What is more surprising is that the U.P. Medical Council has recorded a finding that the OP has described the surgery as an accident and he could not offer the correct answers in respect of the anatomy of the region. It seems that a feeble contention was raised that both the kidneys were on the same side, but this was found to be untenable, and rightly so, in view of the pre-operative status of the radiological and the scanned reports.
NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 31
36. We may point out that the OP has not produced any operative notes to confirm about his findings in this regard. This is yet another negligence and to the contrary, the State Medical Council has found that a forged case sheet had been submitted in defence.
37. The order of the State medical Council was taken up in appeal before the Medical Council of India by the OP which failed. The order of the Medical Council of India dated 24.10.2014 extracted hereinabove also indicates that some of the members who were deciding the said appeal were of the opinion that the punishment given to the OP by the State Medical Council deserved enhancement.
38. With the aforesaid evidence on record, we find that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the OP regarding medical negligence in the case of Jacob Mathew (supra), the Bolam test in the case of Arun Kumar Manglik (supra) and the other decisions relied upon do not in any way extend any aid to the OP. To the contrary, the tests laid down in the cases above on the other hand apply in favour of the complainants, in as much as, the manner in which the surgery has been conducted and as indicated in the reply of the OP himself, does not admit of any doubt or suspicion regarding negligence. The complainants have proved negligence at the hands of the OP who for reasons best known has removed the left kidney of the deceased patient instead of the right one.
39. The consequence of this was that the right kidney which was a failed and dysfunctional kidney remained with the patient who had to be put on NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 32 dialysis and suffered for almost two years before she finally expired, the cause of death being the kidney which ought to have been removed by the OP. 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.
40. Coming to the quantum prayed for, the fact remains that had the left kidney remained intact and had not been removed by the OP, 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 loss is irreparable, in as much as, the loss of a mother to her sons, a spouse to her husband and a housewife to a family, all combined together cannot be diluted, moreso with the nature of the negligence in the present case.
41. 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.
42. We therefore find that given the nature of the losses, it would be appropriate to award Rs. 10 lakhs to each of the complainants for the loss of company, love and affection of the deceased, who departed at a premature NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 33 early age. Apart from this, we find it appropriate to award a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1.5 crores to the complainants for the act of negligence of the OP whom we hold to be liable and responsible for the negligent surgery and removal of the left kidney instead of the right one for which there is no valid explanation, much less a plausible explanation. Accordingly, the complainants will be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 2 Crores as compensation from the OP.
43. We do not find any reason to award any compensation for any disability nor do we find the claim of legal expenses of Rs. 20 lakhs as prayed for to be awardable. The legal expenses shall stand confined to Rs. 1 lakh. Accordingly, the aforesaid amounts shall be paid by the OP to the complainants within three months from today together with 6% interest from the date of death i.e. 20.02.2014 till the date of actual payment.
44. In the event of default, the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 9% till the date of actual payment.
45. The complaint is accordingly allowed.
.............................................
(A.P. SAHI, J) PRESIDENT .............................................
(BHARATKUMAR PANDYA)
MEMBER
Pramod/VM/Court-1/CAV
NC/CC/281/2014 Page | 34