When Renu Bansal decided to donate her kidney to save her husband's life, she did not expect she would spend the next 13 years fighting for her own rights. But that is exactly what unfolded.
Back in 2012, Renu underwent surgery at a Dehradun hospital to donate a kidney to her husband, Jagannath Bansal. He was covered under a family mediclaim policy from the National Insurance Company Limited (NICL), which had been consistently renewed for over a decade. The policy covered the insured and his family members, at least, that's what they believed.
After the transplant, NICL reimbursed the cost of Jagannath's treatment but rejected Renu's claim, arguing she wasn't a "patient" but a "donor". The insurer used this point as a technicality to wash its hands off her hospital bills.
"I gave him my kidney to save his life. I never thought I'd have to fight for my own treatment," Renu stated, according to some media reports after the final judgment that went in her favour.
How did Renu win this case?
She first approached the District Consumer Commission in 2014 and won. NICL, however, appealed the order in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. By then, Jagannath had passed away, but Renu kept going.
Now, more than a decade later, the Uttarakhand State Consumer Commission has upheld the earlier ruling. NICL has been directed to pay Renu Rs 32,500, half the Rs 65,000 sum insured, against her original medical bill of Rs 66,667. Additionally, the insurer must pay 7 per cent annual interest on this amount from 2012 and Rs 25,000 more for the mental distress and legal expenses Renu endured.
Her story has sparked wider conversations around the treatment of organ donors in India's health insurance ecosystem.
However, still, there is no uniformity in how insurers handle donor-related expenses. While some policies do cover donor hospitalisation, many continue to either exclude it altogether or offer minimal, capped coverage. Even more concerning, a 2022 industry report flagged that some companies outright refuse to issue new policies to individuals who have previously donated an organ.
Renu's victory is being seen as more than a personal win. It's a rare, clear call for reform in how health insurance policies treat acts of organ donation — not as exceptions, but as medical procedures with real physical and financial costs.
