'KMC shielding Fortis despite Lokayukta report'

'KMC shielding Fortis despite Lokayukta report'

Maj Pankaj Rai, husband of Seema Rai, who died on May 6, last year, after undergoing a renal-pancreatic transplant at the hospital, had approached the Lokayukta after he suspected negligence during his wife’s operation.

Seema was admitted to the hospital on May 1, last year for a kidney transplant. But doctors, who told the family that she needed a pancreatic transplant, allegedly went ahead with a double organ transplant –– both kidney and pancreas –– without the consent of the patient or her family.


The Lokayukta report of an inquiry into the case indicated that necessary requirements under the Human Organs Transplantation Act were not followed by Fortis Hospital.

Revealing the findings of the Lokayukta report, obtained under RTI, Maj Rai said the authorities –– Appropriate Authority of Government of Karnataka headed by Health Commissioner D N Nayak –– did not conduct periodic inspections of the Fortis Hospital as required. It also mentioned that the hospital had permission to perform only kidney and liver graft. It had no licence for a pancreatic transplant.

The Lokayukta report also exposes major lapses (box) on the part of the hospital during the transplant procedure.

Maj Rai told mediapersons here on Monday that the Lokayukta conducted its investigation and submitted its findings in five months, but the case has been pending with the Karnataka Medical Council for over a year.

The family then approached the Medical Council of India (MCI), which directed the KMC to give its judgement by June 5. However, nothing has happened, Maj Rai said.

The Lokayukta findings, Maj Rai hopes, will help him in the writ petition filed by him in the High Court. The report has also been submitted to the KMC and he hopes that  the Council would take appropriate action against Fortis Hospital based on the Lokayukta's recommendation.

Lokayukta findings

* Signature in the consent form of the patient did not match the signatures given for blood transfusion or the passport.
* Hospital did not convince the need for urgency for pancreatic transplant and did not sufficiently explain the risks involved to the family.
* Patient was rolled in for surgery even before a cardiologist or a physician could certify fitness for surgery.
* Drug given before any transplant surgery to avoid complications was not administered.
* Doctors failed to inform the condition of the patient from time to time to the family.
* Doctor conducting the pancreatic transplant had done so for the first time in the hospital and the certificate of qualification of the doctor does not specifically mention his expertise in pancreatic transplant.
* Inquiry committee headed by D N Nayak failed to go into all the findings of the medical reports.

DH Newsletter Privacy Policy Get top news in your inbox daily
Comments (+)