COLOMBO, October 31, 2026 — Attorney Bhanuka Malaviarachchi pursued a consumer complaint over an incorrect newborn weight reading, admission delays and room cleanliness, securing a Rs. 45,900 compensation order after a prolonged dispute.
The Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA) has ordered Ninewells Hospital (Pvt) Ltd to pay Rs. 45,900 in compensation to attorney-at-law Bhanuka Malaviarachchi following a complaint concerning an inaccurate weight measurement of his newborn daughter and aspects of the private hospital’s services.
The decision follows an inquiry arising from events in June 2024, when Malaviarachchi questioned a weight reading recorded during a medical examination of his infant at the hospital’s Narahenpita premises.
According to the complaint, the recorded weight prompted concern about the child’s condition and recommendations for further medical investigations. A subsequent examination at another private hospital produced a substantially different measurement.
The complaint also raised concerns about the family’s experience during the mother’s admission for childbirth and the cleanliness of the hospital room allocated to them.
Following consideration of the evidence, CAA Chairman Hemantha Samarakoon issued an order dated September 7, 2026, requiring Ninewells to compensate the complainant.
Malaviarachchi has since confirmed that he received the payment and intends to donate the proceeds to a healthcare institution.
A 195-Gram Difference in a Newborn’s Weight
The dispute began when Malaviarachchi took his infant daughter to Ninewells Hospital for a paediatric examination in June 2024.
According to the case account, a nurse weighed the child using an electronic scale and recorded a reading of 2.480 kilograms.
Consultant Paediatrician Dr Buddima Jayasinghe subsequently expressed concern about the apparent weight loss and recommended further medical investigations, including a serum bilirubin test.
The parents, concerned about the reported reduction in their daughter’s weight, sought another medical assessment.
They took the infant to Kings Hospital in Colombo, where Consultant Paediatrician Dr R. Ajanthan examined her.
Two separate electronic scales were reportedly used during the second examination, producing a reading of 2.675 kilograms.
The difference between the recorded measurements was 195 grams.
Malaviarachchi considered the discrepancy significant and questioned whether the initial weight had been measured accurately.
He also disputed the expenses arising from medical investigations recommended following the original reading.
An inaccurate weight measurement can affect clinical assessments, particularly in newborn infants, although the necessity of any individual medical test depends on the child’s complete clinical circumstances.
The difference between the two readings does not, by itself, establish that every recommended investigation was medically unnecessary.
Silencing the Witness: Asiri Hospital’s ‘Fraud Case’ to Bury a Mystery Death
The family of a woman who died following treatment at Asiri Central Hospital questions a reported fraud complaint against her daughter, while the hospital denies allegations of medical negligence and delays in releasing the patient’s remains.
READ FULL STORYConcerns Raised About Hospital Weighing Equipment
During the CAA inquiry, Malaviarachchi submitted documentary material and a recording of a telephone conversation with the attending paediatrician.
According to the case documents described in subsequent reporting, the doctor acknowledged that problems involving weighing scales had previously occurred at the hospital.
The complainant maintained that the hospital should have taken appropriate steps to ensure the reliability of equipment used in examining newborn infants.
The inquiry also referred to an inspection by the Measurement Units, Standards and Services Department in August 2024.
The inspection took place after the hospital indicated that its weighing equipment had been readjusted.
According to the reported inspection findings, an inactive weighing scale remained in a consultation room used by paediatricians.
The evidence formed part of the broader dispute concerning the accuracy and maintenance of equipment used in patient care.
Importantly, the available reporting does not establish that hospital personnel intentionally manipulated the scale or deliberately recommended unnecessary treatment to obtain money.
Those accusations, made in the original article, go beyond the findings that could be independently substantiated.
Complaint Also Covered Admission Delays and Room Cleanliness
The consumer complaint extended beyond the infant’s weight measurement.
Malaviarachchi alleged that his wife, who had arrived at the hospital for a planned Caesarean section, was required to wait for more than two hours near the admission counter.
According to his account, she remained seated in the general waiting area between approximately 8.30 p.m. and 10.45 p.m.
He questioned whether the admission process provided an appropriate standard of service for a patient arriving for childbirth.
Further concerns were raised about the condition of Room No. 716, which had been allocated to the family.
The complaint described discoloured walls, unsatisfactory bathroom cleanliness and delays in housekeeping services.
Malaviarachchi maintained that staff had to be reminded repeatedly before cleaning was undertaken.
Ninewells Hospital disputed liability for the complaint but, according to the case account, acknowledged that admission delays and individual shortcomings in room maintenance could occur.
The hospital also reportedly indicated that steps were being taken to improve seating arrangements in the admission area following feedback.
In addressing the delay, Ninewells referred to the admission arrangements associated with the package selected by the complainant, including whether express admission was available.
The dispute therefore involved not only the accuracy of clinical equipment but also the quality and timeliness of services provided to paying patients.
Consumer Affairs Authority Orders Compensation
Malaviarachchi pursued the matter through the Consumer Affairs Authority under the Consumer Affairs Authority Act, No. 9 of 2003.
Section 32 of the Act establishes implied warranties relating to the provision of goods and services, including obligations concerning reasonable care and skill.
The legislation also provides mechanisms through which consumers may seek redress where applicable statutory warranties have not been fulfilled.
The complaint was considered under reference CAA/L&E/INQ/032/2024, according to the supplied case account.
Following the inquiry, CAA Chairman Hemantha Samarakoon issued an order requiring Ninewells Hospital to pay Rs. 45,900 to Malaviarachchi.
The amount was calculated from disputed medical and hospital-service charges identified in the complaint.
The reported breakdown was:
| Expense | Amount |
|---|---|
| Paediatric consultation charge | Rs. 30,000 |
| Serum bilirubin investigation | Rs. 2,590 |
| Additional consultation at Kings Hospital | Rs. 4,300 |
| Admission and hospital-service charges | Rs. 9,010 |
| Total compensation | Rs. 45,900 |
The order required compliance within 30 days and referred to the statutory enforcement mechanisms available if payment was not made.
Malaviarachchi subsequently confirmed that the compensation had been received.
Why the Decision Matters for Patients
The outcome demonstrates that complaints concerning private healthcare services may fall within the consumer protection framework where the relevant legal requirements are satisfied.
Sri Lanka’s Consumer Affairs Authority has powers to investigate complaints concerning goods and services and, following an appropriate inquiry, direct compensation or other forms of relief.
The decision also illustrates the importance of accurate records, properly maintained equipment and clear communication between healthcare institutions and patients.
For families with newborn infants, uncertainty surrounding medical measurements can create considerable anxiety, particularly when additional examinations or treatment are recommended.
At the same time, concerns about equipment accuracy should be distinguished from allegations of intentional wrongdoing or professional misconduct, which require their own evidentiary basis.
Malaviarachchi said he pursued the complaint because he believed patients should be able to challenge services they considered unsatisfactory.
He has indicated that he intends to donate the compensation to a cancer hospital fund or a healthcare facility serving a rural community.
The case provides a practical example of how consumer redress mechanisms can be used to examine complaints involving private medical services, while reinforcing the importance of transparent procedures and reliable standards of patient care.
