My Claim that Satyamev Jayte is Poorly Researched stands Vindicated!

For Aamir Khan and Satyamev Jayate Team. The other side of the story (letter from the nephrologist who treated the case of Organ transplant).

Aamir Khan and his famed ‘research’ team should have checked the facts before airing this concocted story on national television. It is sad that the medical profession is being brought to disrepute to increase the TRPs of the show.

Eye opener

Respected Aamir Khan Ji

I watched with shock and despair the Satyamev Jayate program of May 27, 2012. I am responding since you referred to me although you do not know me. I am the Nephrologist that you referred to while conversing with Mr. Rai. Mr. Rai has been making false and fabricated allegations for the past 2 years. While talking to you, in addition to providing you with false information, he also withheld crucial facts.Over the past 2 years, Mr. Rai has been harassing the Transplant surgeon and myself (Nephrologist) and the Hospital by filing multiple and concurrent complaints at various fora whether or not they have any role on his complaints. With his manipulations, he has succeeded to a great extent in bringing to a standstill transplant surgeries at the the Hospital which has caused a great deal of hardship to several patients. In addition, he has also caused immense damage to the noble field of cadaver transplantation in Karnataka State.Once you are aware of the actual facts, I have no doubt that you will express regret for having given platform to a sophisticated lier with immense theatrical and manipulative skills.Here are some facts that shed light on the truth.

1. Mr. Rai never informed you that Mrs. Seema Rai underwent cadaver donor transplantation and was registered for a cadaver transplantation more than one year prior to surgery. The phone call on the night of admission was made because a suitable cadaver donor had been identified by ZCCK (Government body that allocates cadaver organs) and not by the doctors or the Hospital. Cadaver transplantation has to be done emergently, otherwise the organ(s) will decay within hours and become useless. That is why the patient was admitted on Saturday night (1 May 2010). The patient and her family were all informed about risks and benefits of transplantation for more than 2 years (since June 2008). In fact, whenever the patient consulted me she was eager to get kidney transplant so that she could stop the misery of undergoing dialysis. You can ask any dialysis patient, they will inform that they do not want dialysis but prefer transplantation.

2. Mr. Rai, Mrs. Rai and Abha Rai all were again counseled for more than 1 hour on the night of admission about kidney and pancreas transplantation. Subsequently they also discussed with their relative in New York. Then on the night of 1 May itself Mr. Rai personally informed me and other doctors to proceed with kidney + pancreas transplantation. The Informed Consent form was signed on the night of 1 May itself and handed over the ward doctor. These facts have been documented by the nurse as well as the ward resident doctor. The State Medical Council as well as the National Law School of India have investigated the Informed Consent issue and clearly stated that Informed Consent was indeed taken prior to surgery. In fact, if the Informed Consent was not given on the night of 1 May, the cadaver organ would have been allocated to the next patient on the waiting list for cadaver transplantation who was also admitted to another Hospital on the same night for possible transplant surgery. (Whenever a cadaver donor is available, several patients on the waiting list such as Seema Rai are called and advised to get admitted so that the cadaver organ does not get wasted in case one or more patients are found to be unfit or do not want surgery.) If Mrs. Rai and her family had not consented for the surgery on the night of 1 May, then a surgeon from another Hospital would have proceeded to retrieve the cadaver organ on the night of 1 May. The surgeon from our hospital would have gone home. The very fact that our surgeon traveled on the midnight hours of Saturday to the donor Hospital and brought back the cadaver organs by about 5.30 AM on a Sunday morning suggests that the patient and family indeed had agreed for the surgery.

3. Mr. Rai also concealed from you the fact that he had telephoned the Nephrologist several times on the night of 1 May to seek help to arrange for a special medicine (Simulect) that was to be given to the patient in the Operating Theater before the transplant procedure. The Nephrologist had personally called the Pharmaceutical company on Saturday night to help Mr. Rai to procure the medicine. The Nephrologist had given personal surety to the Company since Mr. Rai told him that he did not have cash to purchase the medicine in the middle of the night. In fact, Mr. Rai procured the medicine at about 7.30 AM on 2 May (Sunday) and handed the same to the Operating theater staff. If the patient and Mr. Rai had not consented for the surgery, why would he purchase the medicine and hand it over to the Hospital staff?

3. Mr. Rai never asked the doctors or any other Hospital staff not to proceed with the surgery at any time. He was plainly lying when he made a statement to that effect to you. If in fact, the patient and her family had not consented for the surgery, that would have been Mr. Rai’s first and major complaint when he filed an FIR with the police on 30 May 2010 accusing the doctors of murder. In his initial complaint to the police as well as to the State Medical Council, Mr. Rai never complained that he or the patient had not consented for the surgery. This fabricated allegation is clearly an afterthought on Mr. Rai’s part.
4. The patient did not receive 119 units of blood, i.e., 60 liters of blood. She received 33 units of blood over 4 days which is about 13 liters of blood since she had developed a massive bleeding condition called Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC). She also received platelets, FFP and other blood products to correct DIC. The doctors never told Mr. Rai and his family that 390 cc of blood would be required. No doctor can predict the exact amount of blood loss in a given patient who undergoes surgery. Besides, the large requirement of blood in this patient was due to the fact she developed a medical complication called DIC which can happen after any major surgery or major trauma. Normally in transplant surgeries, we do not transfuse any blood at all.

5. The transplant surgeon is highly qualified to conduct pancreatic transplantation as well as kidney transplantation. He is trained at well known Hospitals in the United States where he had conducted numerous multi-organ transplantation surgeries. All relevant documents were reviewed by the Health Department before the Hospital was granted registration for multi-organ transplant surgeries in March 2010.

6. Mr. Rai was again lying when he stated that the doctors had switched off their phone on 6 May after the patient’s death. In fact, Mr. Rai spoke to the doctors several times after the patient’s death. This can be easily verified by looking at Mr. Rai’s phone records.

7. The Hospital was registered for multi-organ transplantation. There was a clerical error in the Certificate which was acknowledged by the Health Department. The Health Department have clearly stated in their report that registration for liver includes pancreas as well (since the skill required for transplantation of both these organs is one and the same).

8. Mr. Rai also withheld from you that the Karnataka Medical Council has thoroughly investigated the case and found no evidence of any negligence on the part of the doctors.

9. Mr. Rai also withheld the fact the Hospital bill was not for the surgery alone. Most of the cost was due the use of blood and blood products and other medicines which was necessitated by the development of DIC and infection. If the patient had not developed DIC, the bill for a transplant surgery would have been about Rs. 3.5 lakhs. In fact, there was no additional charge for pancreas at all. Whether the patient received cadaver kidney or cadaver kidney + pancreas, the bill would have been the same. There was absolutely no financial motive in recommending the combined surgery. The surgeon recommended combined surgery because diabetic kidney failure patients do much better with combined cadaver kidney + pancreas surgery than cadaver kidney transplant alone. This has been well established in the medical literature. The surgeon made the recommendation with the best interest of the patient in mind. Even todate Mr. Rai has not produced any scientific evidence or professional opinion to contradict the recommendation of the transplant surgeon. All transplant specialists who have reviewed the case (from AIIMS-New Delhi, PGI-Chandigarh, Chennai, Bangalore, and USA) have unanimously opined that the patient received the best possible treatment and that her death, although very unfortunate, was not due to any negligence on the part of the doctors or the Hospital.

10. Mr. Rai also did not inform you on the Air that he has filed a complaint with the Consumer Forum seeking compensation of Rs. 84,55,933/-. I am sure Mr. Rai has used his theatrical skills to convince you and your team about his false allegations. I am also confident that you will realize the lapse your research team has done once all the facts become apparent. I am enclosing a detailed Medical History as well and other documents that shed light on true facts.After my medical college, I studied and then worked in the United States for nearly 16 years. I came back with a dream to serve my countrymen. However, now after going through the mental trauma caused by a reckless individual who is inadvertently abetted by a corrupt officialdom and a thoughtless media, I am beginning to wonder if I made a mistake in returning to India. Perhaps, I should also go back to the United States like the doctor that you showed in the opening sequence of your program who returned to the UK because of the corrupt system in India.

I invite you and your team to visit the Hospital, meet other patients who have undergone/undergoing dialysis, patients who have had transplant surgery, and meet the Transplant surgeon so that you can clarify all the facts for yourself.Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any clarifications.

-Dr. R. Sreedhara
Nephrologist

Tags:
25 Comments
  1. Author
    Milind 7 years ago

    Aamir should stand up and ask forgiveness. I will write another letter to IMA soon.Had already written one! Will publish what I had written after the matter comes to an end!

    • sputnik 7 years ago

      Can you give the source/link for the letter here.

      Thanks.

  2. sputnik 7 years ago

    I had commented this on the episode dealing with Healthcare.

    “Aamir is saying that their intention is to not pronounce judgement as the case is subjudice but then why bring people on the show to tell only their side of the story. It would be better if he brings people who have already won cases.”

    Looks like not researching properly and not listening to the other side is causing the issue now. One of the basic rules of Journalism is that you have to try to get both sides of the story and when one side refuses you say that they did not agree to a interview or talk to us.

    Aamir did not reveal that the “Karnataka Medical Council has investigated the case”. This is either completely stupid research or deliberately misleading the audience.

  3. RajeevB 7 years ago

    All the documents cited by you are from 2010. Here is a link of report of lokayukta submitted in june 2011.

    http://www.hindu.com/2011/06/08/stories/2011060864680400.htm

    http://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=10&contentid=2011060520110605005445800622c5f2e

    This clearly shows that there were lapses during the conduct of operation as well as enquiry conducted by Appropriate Authority.

    • sputnik 7 years ago

      First of all these documents are from IBNLive site and not by me.

      Secondly your claim that “All the documents cited by you are from 2010.” is not true.

      Thirdly you gave links to the Loyakuta report from June 2011 and you state that “This clearly shows that there were lapses during the conduct of operation as well as enquiry conducted by Appropriate Authority.”

      One of the documents listed above (am giving link below again) has this.

      ‘Afrer review of all the information and the pertinent law, the Hon’ble Lokayukta makes a Final
      Scrutiny Note on 9/9/2011. Some important points are noted below:
      a. “The enquiry report submitted by the Appropriate Authority assumes the status
      of a report submitted by the statutory body.”
      b. “…..the said Appropriate Authority is not only a statutory body but it is also a
      quasi-judicial authority….”
      c. “…..quasi-judicial authority also are beyond the purview of the Karnataka
      Lokayukta Act.”
      d. “……the remedies lies to the complainant elsewhere and not before this
      institution (i.e., Lokayukta)

      The Final Scrutiny by Lokayukta Office recommends the following:
      a. “ceasing further investigation in this case….on the grounds that this Institution
      has no jurisdiction to conduct investigation ………”
      b. “To send (preliminary) report in the form of letter regarding investigation
      conducted …….without any finding or recommendation……”’

      “the Hospital filed a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka against the cancellation of
      registration. In an interim order dated 23/12/2011, the High Court has stayed the impugned
      cancellation order (WP 45437/2011) allowing the Hospital to carry out all transplant surgeries
      except pancreas which will be decided in its final orders.”

      Read the whole document.

      Link

      • RajeevB 7 years ago

        This is not some official report . It is a report by Fortis healthcare to support their case. What is the veracity of this report ? The documents which you have mentioned above shows just one side of the coin. The hospital license was cancelled by high court on the basis of Lokayukta report . A court order dated 17 april 2012 has again upheld the cancellation of license( hearing of the case is going on in majority bench of high court).

        What I want to say is that the episode isnt that much poorly researched as you want to project.

        • sputnik 7 years ago

          I cited the official recommendations from Lokayukta and a final status that the hearing is going on.

          As I said before you try to present both sides – when you present only one side it is not well researched.

  4. RajeevB 7 years ago

    Why should have Aamir cited the findings of Karnataka Medical Council when the Lokayukta report and single bench order of High court were in favour of Mr. Pankaj Rai. Here is the link

    http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_negligence-costs-bangalore-s-fortis-hospital-its-licence-to-transplant-organs_1588007

    • sputnik 7 years ago

      Aamir said its subjudice but why did he not disclose all these facts? Why did he not get the other side to atleast respond?

      You are giving links from June and September 2011. Read my comment above and the final status is from Dec 2011.

      Mr Rai and the Doctors seem to be fighting it out. Dr.Rai is threatening the writer of that article that he will file a case against her. Dr.Rai and his daughter Abha are saying that the writer Radhika presented only one side of the story – this after they came on SMJ and presented only their side of the story with no response from the other side.

      Here is the article.

      http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=5990&mod=1&pg=1&sectionId=14&valid=true

      And here are the comments.

      http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/commentview.php?sid=5990&sectionId=14&mod=1&pg=1&valid=true

      • RajeevB 7 years ago

        The latest position as of now is that the case is pending with the majority bench. Till the final decision the scrapping of the license has been upheld.It means that at present the hospital cant carry out organ transplantation.

        http://content.ibnlive.in.com/article/18-Apr-2012south-india/scrapping-hospital-licence-upheld-249745-60.html

        “Aamir said its subjudice but why did he not disclose all these facts? Why did he not get the other side to atleast respond?”

        So you wanted that he should have disclosed all these facts .Yes I agree he should have mentioned the report of Karnataka Medical Council( various corruption charges have been levelled against this organization) and then he should have mentioned the Lokayukta report, then High Court order and various intricacies and litigation involved in the case. It could have been a good discussion of more than three hours on Major Pankaj Rai case rather than on a petty issue of medical malpractices. But here is the problem , the topic of discussion was a liitle bit different.

        • sputnik 7 years ago

          Sarcasm is not going to help. You get both sides of the story when you claim it is well researched especially when the case is subjudice. Even a Rakhi Sawant show gets both sides.

          And even on the dowry episode he did not present anything on Sec 498 and its misuse.

          • RajeevB 7 years ago

            Dont know whether sarcasm is going to help or not but nitpicking is certainly not going to help. I havent watched Rakhi Sawant show so wont comment on that. But I think the format and purpose of Satyamev Jayate is different. The purpose is not to discuss both sides of the issue and then come to some conclusion.It is about creating awareness about some problems. Medical malpractices is rampant everywhere( no one can deny that) and the intentions were to present the information in a way that people could relate to. No one can deny the extent of problems here. The challenge is to provide relevant information in 60 minutes which it did well in this episode

            As far as the case is concerned . Yes it is subjudice. But then even after high court orders the case may go to supreme court( the process of single bench, majority bench, review bench etc will continue there)This may take years to pass final judgement. In most of these cases the trajectory is the same(it take years to sort any issue).It doesnt mean that the case should not be presented.

            As far as Dowry episode is concerned I havent watched that. But yes I agree that there is rampant misuse of sec 498. But to talk about this issue isnt that easy. NCW and other women organization have protested umpteen number of times against any amendment of this section. I am sure that even a mention of sec 498 could have led to a ruckus.

  5. sputnik 7 years ago

    @RajeevB,

    I liked the healthcare episode too and said the same before. It was the best episode among the first four episodes. Have not seen the fifth episode.

    I don’t believe in praising everything unless it genuinely deserves that. If I feel there is anything wrong I point that out. I had said that they should either bring both sides or use only those cases where the people on the show had already won and that it would go well with the title of the show – Satyamev Jayate.

    See if the show’s intention is “about creating awareness about some problems.” then they should have done at least a 10 min section on Sec 498 in the dowry episode.

    “NCW and other women organization have protested umpteen number of times against any amendment of this section. I am sure that even a mention of sec 498 could have led to a ruckus.”

    That’s even more reason to talk about Sec 498.

    • Maj Pankaj Rai 7 years ago

      Dr Sputnik – at present there is a ban on all organ transplant surgeries at Fortis Hospital effective 17th April 2012. What Dr Rajanna Sreedhara has not said is that the orders passed in WP 45437/2011 on 23rd December 2011 have since been superseded. He has also not said that the enquiry of Karnataka Medical Council where elections have not been held for 18 years is a farce since Karnataka Medical Council does not have any locus standii in investigating violations of Transplantation of Human Organs Act. Dr Sreedhara has shown utter contempt for Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by referring to earlier enquiries where he and his hospital were exonerated knowing fully well that these arguments were trashed in WP6523/2011 where he himself is a party. He has not spoken about how pancreas was allocated to a patient who had never been advised nor registered for it and how his colleague Dr Ramcharan Thiagarajan the transplant surgeon was also a part of the authorisation committee. Why was death not reported in the prescribed period of 7 days but after 10 months and how was it described as ‘natural’ and why post mortem was not recommended? Why does his hospital not publish details of transplant surgeries done as mandated? For the sake of argument even if the patient had signed is that consent valid when the suppressed the fact that it was being taken for an illegal transplant surgery? Why is Dr Rajanna Sreedhara sabotaging the cadaver organ transplant programme in India for his greed for money? Why is he trying to flee the country while on anticipatoy bail? Why was he asked to leave Institute of Nephro Urology and Sagar Apollo? I can understand that greed got the better of him and he had no qualms in snuffing out the life of an innocent patient. What I dont know is whether he is doing this on his own or this was a directive from the top management of Fortis? The money which can be earned by doing transplant surgery on foreigners coiming on tourist visa must have been tempting.

      • Baba Ji 7 years ago

        pankaj – sputnik is doctor? 😮 😉

      • sputnik 7 years ago

        Firstly I am not a Doctor. Secondly this post was by another member of this forum.

        Initially when the documents from the Doctor’s side came out I thought they are right but then RajeevB pointed out some of the inconsistencies and that they did not mention the latest court rulings.

        My last comment was your letter to IBN. Dr. Rajanna Sreedhara has definitely tried to hide the latest rulings which went against him.

        “Satyamev Jayate debate: Victim Pankaj Rai strikes back at doctor R Sreedhara ”

        My Claim that Satyamev Jayte is Poorly Researched stands Vindicated!

  6. iamreza 7 years ago

    aamir is doing this show only to clear his image.

  7. RajeevB 7 years ago

    This is the full Lokayukta report on the matter.

    http://pbtindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Karnataka-Lokayukta-Order-May-2011.pdf

    The authority have cited that the family was asked for 113 bottles of blood (by the hospital). The report indicts hospital on various charges.

  8. sputnik 7 years ago

    Satyamev Jayate debate: Victim Pankaj Rai strikes back at doctor R Sreedhara

    “Do you know the pain of losing your best friend? I pray that god gives every man a girl like Seema.” – Pankaj Rai

    Retired Army officer Major Pankaj Rai had lost his wife Seema to what he called a botched kidney transplantation operation at a well known hospital in Bangalore. He had accused the doctors attending to her of medical malpractice on Aamir Khan’s popular show Satyamev Jayate. Nephrologist Dr Rajanna Sreedhara, the accused doctor of Fortis Hospital in Bangalore, had appealed on IBNLive and social networking forums for a chance to tell his side of the story. He said Rai was harassing him for the past two years for a crime he said he had not committed and that the show had ruined his reputation as a respected physician.

    We had published a detailed account of his version of the events leading up to the death of Seema and the legal tangle that left him in.
    Satyamev Jayate debate: Victim Pankaj Rai strikes back at doctor R Sreedhara
    Retired Army officer Major Pankaj Rai

    On reading Dr Sreedhara’s transcript defending himself, Rai wrote an open letter to IBNLive with several supporting medical and legal documents. He said the facts were not represented correctly by Dr Sreedhara and that he was fighting a lone legal battle with limited resources against a mighty corporation.

    Here, in his own words, is Rai’s summary of the legal and medical facts that were brought up at the hearing of various bodies of arbitration, beyond what was aired on Satyamev Jayate.

    Open Letter: Rejoinder by Major Pankaj Rai (Retd)

    My wife Seema Rai expired on 6 May 2010 after kidney-pancreas transplant surgery at Fortis Hospital. I complained to the Karnataka Medical Council (KMC) and Appropriate Authority for Organ Transplantation (AA) of negligence and violation of Transplantation of Human Organs Act (TOHA) by Fortis Hospital and its doctors. [14] AA accepted two of the three points in the complaint viz surgery without license and post-operative infection but not ‘informed consent’.

    KMC exonerated doctors/hospital of violation of TOHA. They issued a warning to Fortis hospital for post-operative infection. Post-operative infection is a violation of the terms and conditions of the transplantation license and has not been challenged by the hospital. [15] [24]

    In Malay Kumar Ganguly vs Dr Sukumar Mukherjee and Ors [1] (07.08.2009) Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed, “It is the duty of the doctors to prevent further spreading of infections. Hospitals or nursing homes where a patient is taken for better treatment should not be a place for getting infection”.

    The doctors of Fortis – Dr Rajanna Sreedhara and Dr Ramcharan Thiagarajan did not report the death of my wife within the stipulated period of 7 days but after ten months. They did not suggest post-mortem even though she died on the sixth day of hospitalization. The cause of death described is ‘natural’ in the Form No 4 ‘Medical Certificate – Cause of Death’ of the hospital dated 7th May 2010 signed by Dr Ananda.

    The misleading arguments of Dr Rajanna Sreedhara of Fortis Hospital are being refuted below:

    High Court Orders: The quoted order of December 23, 2011 has been superseded by the following: orders of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court.

    a. Order dated March 19, 2012: The Court observed that Fortis was trying to protract litigation since they got a stay order [2] [24] [25]

    b. Order dated April 17, 2012: Fortis is restrained from doing any organ transplant surgery [3] [23]

    c. Order dated May 30 2012: Stay to continue till the date of next hearing – 30th August 2012; Fortis cannot do organ transplant surgery. [4]

    Fortis’ Organ Transplant License: Registration is organ specific. No hospital can do transplant of any organ not specifically mentioned in their registration (Form 12). Violation is a criminal act. Fortis did not apply for pancreas transplant in the form prescribed (Form No 11), nor was it considered and permitted. The Inspection Team recommended kidney, liver and homograft only. The statement that Dr Ramesh told them that liver includes pancreas is untrue. This is confirmed from the replies by the Appropriate Authority for Organ Transplantation of Human Organs Act in March 2011, July 2011 and the orders of the Appellate Authority dated 24th November 2011. There is no “deemed provision” in the Act.

    Hospitals which have license for pancreas are:

    [5] [6] [7] [16]

    – Kameneni Hospital, Hyderabad: Kidney/Heart/Liver/Pancreas

    – Global Hospitals Hyderabad: Kidney/Liver/Pancreas/Small Intestines/Bone Marrow/Heart/Lung

    – Asian Institute of Gastroenterology Hyderabad: Liver/Pancreas/Islet Cell Transplantation

    – Global Hospitals Chennai: Liver/Pancreas (Regn No 19/2008 dt 14 May 2009)

    – BGS Global Bangalore: Kidney/Liver/Pancreas (MDM/20/07-08) dt 31 Oct 2008

    – Narayana Hrudalaya: Pancreas (MDM/31/2007-08) dt 6 Sept 2008

    – Columbia Asia Hospital: Liver/Kidney/Pancreas (MDM/121/80-09) dt 3 Dec 2008

    – AIIMS New Delhi: Kidney/Liver/Heart/Cornea/Pancreas

    – IP Apollo Hospitals: Kidney/Heart/Liver/Pancreas.

    Fortis has committed an offence under Section 18 punishable with ten years imprisonment. The term ‘liver includes abdominal organs’ refers to Rule 9C and is not relevant to licensing/registration of hospitals as evidenced from the reply of DGHS and Bombay High Court ruling in 2011. [17][18]

    Informed Consent:

    This can only be given by the patient (Supreme Court ruling in Samira Kohli Vs Deepa Manchanda and Section 12). This was not done. The statement of Dr Sreedhara that risks were explained is untrue. He has himself stated that he did not recommend pancreatic transplantation. The stance has now changed. The question of pancreas transplant was raised only hours before the patient was taken for operation. The license conditions stipulate that a booklet containing risks/benefits have to be given to the patient 14 days prior to surgery. The patient has also to be evaluated by a psychiatric. This was not done.

    Dr Sreedhara had in his notes dated 1 May 2010 had directed that the patient be evaluated by a cardiologist before evaluation. He admitted in his deposition at KMC that this was not done. Now, out of the blue a certificate from Dr Venkatesh is reported to have surfaced. This is another offence against the patient under Section 12 of the Act. The doctors misrepresented that they had a license for pancreas. This matter is the subject of a writ petition that I have filed before Hon’ble Court of Karnataka. Fortis has also not said that there then legal counsel Dr Joga Rao who represented them at KMC/High Court was also a faculty at National School of Law from whom the Government sought an opinion on ‘informed consent’. [20]

    National School of Law has said that they have not verified whether the patient herself signed and whether risks/benefits were explained in the manner specified in the license conditions. When the subject of pancreatic transplantation was first broached on 1st May 2010 because an organ was available and even though the patient had not registered for that, where is the question of explaining risks 14 days prior to surgery? [8] [9] [10]

    Testimony by other doctors: Dr Gokul Nath of St John’s Hospital did not represent St John’s Hospital but in his personal capacity sent his affidavit to KMC. I was not permitted to cross-examine him. His evidence therefore is inadmissible. None of the doctors who have testified on behalf of Dr Sreedhara have stated that a hospital can do transplant pancreatic transplant surgery and without the patient’s consent and violate patient rights. [21]

    Dr Sreedhara has referred to earlier enquiries (Dr Raju/Appropriate Authority) in December 2010 where they were exonerated. He has suppressed the fact that these enquiries are irrelevant in view of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka orders which has reached its finality. All the arguments put forth by Dr Sreedhara were trashed by the Hon’ble High Court. On the contrary Dr Sreedhara and his hospital have shown disrespect for the Court by raking these arguments again. It is also pointed out that KMC is not competent to investigate violations of Transplantation of Human Organs Act, but it is the Appropriate Authority constituted under Section 13 of the Act. Are people aware that elections have not been held in KMC for the past 17 years?

    It is also relevant to take note of the Hon’ble Lokayukta findings about Fortis and Dr Raju’s behavior which is under scrutiny at the office of Hon’ble Lokayukta. The orders of KMC have also been challenged at MCI. [12] [13]

    Other violations of Transplantation of Human Organs Act:

    a. Dr Ramcharan Thiagarajan (transplant surgeon) was also a part of the authorisation committee – ‘conflict of interest’ and violation of Rule 4A of Transplantation of Human Organ Rules. This by itself is an offence punishable under the Act. [22]

    b. Website: Fortis does not display details of transplant surgeries done as specified in Rule 6(F)(j). http://www.fortishospitals.com/

    In our country we respect doctors and consider them next to God and rightly so. Here we are not talking about medical negligence but breach of trust by doing surgery without a valid license and without consent. Should a stage come where patients ask doctors/hospitals to show their licenses/registration? How different is this from quackery and deceit? Should more homes be destroyed? Should the license be used as a license to kill and should influential doctors/private hospitals use their clout to silence anyone who questions their wrongdoings?

    http://ibnlive.in.com/news/satyamev-jayate-victim-strikes-back-at-doctor/265030-44-124.html

  9. Maj Pankaj Rai 7 years ago

    The misrepresentations of Dr Rajanna Sreedhara now stand exposed. I have put my rejoinder on CNN IBN which can be viewed at the link below. Why has Rajanna Sreedhara not gone ahead and filed a suit against Aamir Khan? Why has Fortis Hospital asked the nephrologist to keep his mouth shut? Why was his contract terminated at Sagar Apollo? Why was he terminated at Institute of Nephro Urology? Why is the doctor trying to feel the country when on anticipatory bail? Do Shivinder Singh/Malvinder Singh encourage illegal transplant surgeries and organ trafficing in their hospitals?

    http://ibnlive.in.com/news/satyamev-jayate-victim-strikes-back-at-doctor/265030-44-124.html

    Aamirji – thanks for a wonderful episode and exposing the black sheep in the medical fraternity who are merchants of death.

    Satyameva Jayate!

    Pankaj Rai

  10. Author
    milind 7 years ago

    Maj Pankaj Rai ,..

    Would reply in detail by tomorrow

  11. Raghu Kuchibotla 5 years ago

    +1 to Maj Pankaj Rai comments about medical fraternity. Very recently i witnessed the ugly part of medical profession through Asian Institute of Nephrology & Urology, hyderabad and wrote my 100% correct and honest review (I still didn’t mention certain other bad aspects that are due in next update)

    http://www.mouthshut.com/review/Asian-Institute-of-Gastroenterology-Hyderabad-review-puurlrnmls

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account