Introduction:
In a case that has sent shockwaves through the medical and legal fraternity, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently intervened in a deeply disturbing matter involving allegations of a missing kidney from a deceased patient’s body. The case, titled Mangat Ram Sharma v. State of Punjab & Ors., came before Justice Kuldeep Tiwari after a grieving father, Mangat Ram Sharma, approached the court seeking justice for his daughter, Tanya Sharma. Tanya, aged 22, was admitted to HMC Hospital, Ludhiana, on June 1, 2021, for spinal surgery. After two surgeries performed by Dr. Vyom Bhargava, a Spine and Brain Surgeon, and his team, her condition progressively worsened until her untimely death on June 16, 2021. Although the hospital attributed the death to cardiac arrest caused by COVID-19 complications, a shocking revelation during the autopsy intensified suspicions: Tanya’s left kidney was missing. The post-mortem report clearly recorded that the kidney was not traceable, yet the medical board’s report remained silent on this critical aspect. Alarmed by the lack of clarity and the possibility of foul play, the High Court ordered an immediate investigation by the Police Commissioner of Ludhiana and even left open the option of forming a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to uncover the truth behind this baffling mystery.
Arguments by the Petitioner:
The petitioner, represented by Advocate R.S. Ghuman, mounted a forceful case alleging gross medical negligence and possible criminal activity by the treating doctors and the hospital management. The petitioner recounted the tragic sequence of events: Tanya was admitted for surgery on June 1, operated on June 2, and subjected to another surgery on June 7, despite deteriorating health. Instead of improvement, her condition worsened, culminating in her death on June 16. The petitioner challenged the credibility of the hospital’s explanation that her death resulted from cardiac arrest due to COVID-19. He pointed out that this explanation conveniently overlooked several irregularities, including the circumstances necessitating multiple surgeries and the rapid deterioration of a young woman’s health.
The most damning allegation arose from the post-mortem report, which explicitly recorded that Tanya’s left kidney was missing. This discovery, according to the petitioner, was not only shocking but also indicative of possible organ harvesting, an act constituting a heinous crime under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, and Section 302 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code in case foul play is established. The petitioner argued that the silence of the medical board on this glaring omission was inexplicable and strongly suggested an attempt to shield the guilty. Furthermore, he emphasized that despite the lodging of a complaint and submission of the autopsy report, the local police had failed to conduct a meaningful investigation, compelling him to seek judicial intervention. He urged the Court to direct an impartial and high-level investigation, preferably through an SIT, and to involve medical and forensic experts to determine how and why the kidney went missing.
Arguments by the Respondents:
The State of Punjab, represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, and the hospital, represented by Advocate Mr. Sunny K. Singla, opposed the petitioner’s allegations, branding them as speculative and devoid of substantive evidence. The State contended that the death of the patient was medically explained: Tanya suffered from COVID-19 and succumbed to cardiac arrest, a recognized complication in such patients. The defense argued that the surgeries performed were medically warranted, and all necessary precautions had been adhered to during her treatment.
As for the missing kidney, the State maintained that the matter was under examination and that conclusions should not be drawn prematurely. The hospital’s counsel asserted that no act of organ removal occurred during the hospital stay and that the allegation of organ harvesting was “preposterous” and aimed at maligning the institution’s reputation. They urged the Court to recognize that medical professionals were already overburdened during the pandemic, and imputations of criminal intent without direct evidence could demoralize the medical community. Nevertheless, the respondents conceded that if any discrepancy existed, it warranted inquiry, but such an inquiry should proceed strictly as per law without presuming guilt.
Court’s Analysis and Judgment:
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari undertook a meticulous examination of the record and the submissions of both parties. The Court noted that while the medical board’s report attributed Tanya’s death to cardiac arrest induced by COVID-19 infection, it remained conspicuously silent on the autopsy’s shocking disclosure that the deceased’s left kidney was missing. The Court observed:
“Prima facie, this Court is of the view that, the medical report is totally silent on one of the vital issues appertaining to deceased’s missing kidney. Moreover, this Court does not find any document indicating that, this issue was ever referred to any expert for analysis. It is not under dispute, rather it is clearly voiced in the post-mortem report that the left kidney of the deceased was not traceable.”
Terming the situation as “alarming,” the Court held that such a critical omission could not be brushed aside as an inadvertent lapse, particularly when the integrity of medical procedures and the sanctity of huma remains were at stake. The Court stressed that the truth behind the missing kidney “is yet a mystery” and required urgent, comprehensive investigation to ascertain whether the act involved medical negligence or a criminal conspiracy.
Rejecting the hospital’s plea for judicial restraint, the Court underscored that the allegations, fortified by an official autopsy finding, raised serious concerns that implicated both professional ethics and criminal law. Consequently, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, to take immediate charge of the investigation. It further authorized the Commissioner to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and to engage subject-matter experts in forensic medicine and organ transplant regulation to ensure a thorough and scientifically sound inquiry. The matter was posted for further hearing on September 30, with instructions that a detailed status report be placed before the Court.
Through this order, the Court signaled its zero-tolerance approach to lapses in medical accountability and emphasized that even during a public health crisis like COVID-19, ethical and legal obligations could not be compromised. The judgment not only seeks justice for the petitioner but also aims to restore public faith in healthcare institutions by ensuring transparency and a
ccountability.