VIKAS KUMAR Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Order shall decide all the four appeals arising from the impugned Judgment /Order dtd. 21/12/2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. 362/2017, wherein the State Commission allowed the complaint.

(2.) For the Convenience the parties are being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. Mr. Pradeep Kumar and Mrs. Vijay Kumari are identified as the Complainant No. 1 and 2. While Satguru Pratap Singh Hospital is referred to as the OP-1, Dr. Rahul Kohli as OP-2, Dr. Sandeep Guleria as OP-3, Dr. Vikas Kumar as OP-4, and the Insurance Company as OP-5.

(3.) The Complainant No.1 Mr. Pradeep Kumar (for short 'the patient') was suffering from Chronic Kidney Disease-V (CKD-V) with End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD). He was Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Reactive underwent kidney transplant. His wife, Vijay Kumari-Complainant No. 2 was the live donor. Prior to transplant the Nephrologist, OP-2, evaluated on both complainants. On 21/12/2015 the T and B cell Cross-match was performed, it was negative. Additionally, anti HLA antibodies, specifically Donor Specific Antibodies Class I and II, was carried out on the same date and found to be Negative. Thus accepted for the kidney transplant, with patient as the recipient and Complainant No. 2 as the live donor. After completing the formalities of approval under Sec. 9 of the Human Organ Act, 1994, the Renal Transplant was done on 13/3/2016 after obtaining High risk consent from Complainant No. 1. Following the surgery, the patient suffered complications such as pneumonia and a decrease in urine output. On the 7th post-operative day urine output further decreased and rising Serum creatinine level. On 22/3/2016, the Nephrologist (OP-2) conducted a renal biopsy, to rule out rejection. However, the biopsy revealed Acute Tubular Necrosis (ATN). The Serum creatinine level continued to rise and increase in WBC count (TLC). The Renal Doppler was performed on 25/3/2016, it indicated complete blockage of the renal artery. Therefore, on 26/3/2016, surgical exploration with graft nephrectomy was performed. It was alleged that the graft nephrectomy was done without obtaining patient's consent to remove the transplanted kidney. Thereafter, the patient's health condition continued to deteriorate, and he developed Hypotension and pleural effusion. He was shifted to Medanta Hospital at Gurugram wherein received treatment for pneumonia, pancytopenia and fluid overload. In Medanta Hospital, he was advised to continue dialysis regularly and informed that transplantation of the Kidney of Complainant No. 2 was at high-risk. Being aggrieved due to deficiency and negligence during the treatment at Opposite parties, the Complainants filed Consumer Complaint no. 362/2017 before State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh and prayed compensation to the tune of Rs.52,00,000.00 on a different head.