Failed Legal Maneuvers Against Sathya Sai Baba: PART SEVEN

Failed Legal Maneuvers Against Sathya Sai Baba: PART SEVEN

1999 Writ Petition About Alleged Kidney Transplant Malpractice:
On his defamatory, Anti-Sai WordPress blog, Barry Pittard attempted to bolster his lamentable argument that court cases have been filed against Sathya Sai Baba by citing the alleged “stolen kidney” writ petition (whose details were taken exclusively from an Indian newspaper).

First and foremost, the alleged writ petition was not filed against Sathya Sai Baba or the Sai Organization. It was allegedly filed against the doctors at the Super Speciality Hospital. To Date: Not even one person (including resourceful rationalists, atheists or Indian skeptics) has been able to produce a scan or copy to the alleged “stolen kidney” writ petition. The only “evidence” cited is the following Deccan Chronicle newspaper article:

Deccan Chronicle 5.11.99: “Hyderabad Nov 4: Justice G Raghu Ram of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday admitted a writ petition seeking initiation of criminal prosecution against the doctors of the Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, Puttaparthi in Anantapur district alleging malpractices regarding the transplantation of kidney.

The writ petition has been filed by Balaji Triambak Rao Karavande, who has alleged that the doctors of the institute removed a kidney from his body and did not transplant the same to his father…

After he offered to donate one of his kidneys to save his father’s life, the doctors at the institute operated on him on April 25 1994 and told him that the same would be transplanted to his father.

BT Karavande said that his father died in December 1995 and to his shock the doctors claimed that his father’s body did not show signs of a new transplanted kidney. He informed the court that after this revelation, he lodged a complaint with the Latur [Maharashtra] police, who exumed the body, conducted a post-mortem, and confirmed that no kidney transplant has taken place.

He alleged that the police at Puttaparthi did not register the complaint and that he was thrown out of the hospital when he confronted the doctors with the relevant documents. He sought compensation of Rs 20 lakh and direction to the police to register a case and punish the guilty who played fraud upon him.”

Mr Trimakababa Rao was the man who was supposed to have a kidney transplant. Mr Balaji (his son) donated his kidney to his father. After the transplant, the kidney was declared “non-functional, due to vascular occulation” (which means the kidney should have been removed). Consequently, Mr. Balaji’s sister offered her kidney. However, the father had to be put on dialysis. Mr. Balaji heard of a “kidney racket” in Bangalore, became suspicious and had his father undergo a sonogram on August 5th 1995 and a CT scan on August 7th 1995. Both scans allegedly showed that the father had both of his diseased kidneys. Mr. Balaji (after finding out that his father did not have a kidney transplant) did absolutely nothing about it! After his father died in 1997 (2 years after finding out that the kidney transplant did not occur), Mr. Balaji made a complaint with the police and had his father’s body exhumed, which allegedly confirmed no kidney transplant was performed. What happened to the sonogram and CT scan? Why did Mr. Balaji wait for his father to die before he made a complaint 2 years after discovering the alleged malpractice?

The newspaper clipping from the Deccan Herald contributed to the confusion surrounding the facts regarding the “stolen kidney”. The writ petition was allegedly filed in 1999, two years after his father died and four years after the alleged kidney malpractice. Also, despite getting a sonogram and CT scan in 1995, Mr. Balaji did nothing and apparently did not even submit this as key evidence. He waited 2 years until after his father died. In the writ petition, Mr. Balaji made no mention to either the sonogram and CT scans made in 1995.

About this 1999 newspaper article, Barry Pittard said “My reader may be curious (or could simply guess) as to the outcome of the following”. To Date: Neither Barry Pittard (nor any other person for the matter) can provide verifiable documentation to support the claim that the doctors at the Super Speciality Hospital were found guilty of any wrong doing.

Barry Pittard may want others to “guess” about the outcome of this case (because he cannot provide any documentation to back-up his suspicions against the doctors at the Super Speciality Hospital), but the fact of the matter remains that Mr. Pittard does not know the outcome of this case. These are facts and far be it for Barry Pittard to “guess” and ask his readers to “guess” about the outcome of an alleged writ petition whose details have not been mentioned or published by anyone in the past nine years (not even by Indian Rationalists who would have highly publicized any ruling made against the doctors).

Reference

Also see:

Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part One
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Two
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Three
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Four
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Five
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Six
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Seven (You Are Here)

%d bloggers like this: