IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
Deepa P.M. W/o Sajith A.K. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 38624 of 2023
Decided On : 19-12-2023
Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 - Section 9, Section 12 - Altruism - Organ Transplantation - Writ Petition - The court directed the District Level Authorization Committee (DLAC) to complete proceedings on the documents produced by the petitioners without insisting on any 'Letter of Altruism' and issue a final order, allowing the organ transplant to proceed.
Fact of the Case:
The 2nd petitioner urgently needed an organ transplant, and the 1st petitioner offered to donate her organ. However, the 4th respondent refused to issue a 'Letter of Altruism,' hindering the submission of relevant documents to the District Level Authorization Committee (DLAC).
Finding of the Court:
The court found the refusal of the 'Letter of Altruism' and the deferral of the petitioners' application by the DLAC to be untenable and illegal, given the evidence of valid marriage and altruistic intent.
Issues: Refusal of 'Letter of Altruism' by the 4th respondent, deferral of the petitioners' application by the DLAC, and the validity of the petitioners' marriage were the key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the refusal of the 'Letter of Altruism' based on conjectures and the suspicion regarding the petitioners' marriage were unfounded and against constitutional imperatives. It emphasized the dignity and individual respect of the petitioners and directed the DLAC to proceed without insisting on the 'Letter of Altruism.'
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the DLAC to complete proceedings without insisting on the 'Letter of Altruism' and allowing the organ transplant to proceed. The petitioners were granted liberty to seek any necessary clarification in fructification of the orders.
JUDGMENT :
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
1. The 2nd petitioner is stated to be suffering from advanced renal failure and is in emergent need of an organ transplant. The 1st petitioner has come forward to help him by donating her organ; but they say that they have not been able to move forward on account of the refusal of the 4th respondent to issue to them a “Letter of Altruism” which is a statutory requirement. They say that, since the said letter has now been withheld, they have not been able to submit the relevant documents before the 3rd respondent-Local Level Authorization Committee for Renal Transplantation (‘LLAC’ for short); and consequently, that the same could not be forwarded thereafter to the 2nd respondent-District Level Authorization Committee for Renal Transplantation (‘DLAC’ for short).
2. The petitioners, therefore, pray that the 4th respondent be directed to issue an appropriate “Letter of Altruism” and that the 3rd respondent be directed to accept all documents from them and forward the same to the 2nd respondent-DLAC, so as to enable the said Authority to take a final decision on their application.
3. Noticing the afore submissions of the petitioners, as made by the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. K. Ramakumar, instructed by Sri. John Varghese, this Court passed an interim order on 20.11.2023, in the following manner:
In the meanwhile, I direct the petitioners to produce all relevant documents, except the Letter of Altruism before the 3rd respondent forthwith, who will thereupon forward the same to the 2nd respondent-District Level Authorisation Committee (DLAC) immediately thereafter.
Post on 24.11.2023.”
4. Thereafter, this matter was listed on 24.11.2023, on which day, a further order as below was issued:
2. Sri. K. Ramakumar - learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri. John Varghese, submitted that in terms of the afore interim order, his clients have already produced all necessary documents before the third respondent-Committee.
3. Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose-learned Government Pleader, sought a day’s time to obtain further instructions from the fourth respondent as to the status of the petitioners’ application for Letter of Altruism.
4. In the afore circumstances, adverting to the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 30365/2023, I direct the third respondent to immediately forward all the documents, without waiting for the Letter of Altruism, within a period of three working days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
On the same being received by the second respondent, it will assess the documents and take a final decision without requiring the Letter of Altruism; but will not issue orders but will inform its decision to the learned Government Pleader, to be submitted before this Court. This shall be done within a period of four working days after the documents are received by them from the third respondent.
List on 04.12.2023.
H/o.”
5. Subsequently, on 15.12.2023, the learned Government Pleader-Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, submitted that the application for “Letter of Altruism” by the petitioners had been rejected by the 4th respondent; and hence that the “DLAC” had not taken any decision. However, since it is clear from the afore extracted order dated 24.11.2023, that the “DLAC” was directed to take a decision without requiring the “Letter of Altruism” the learned Government Pleader, sought two days time. The matter was thus adjourned to 18.12.2023 with the following proceedings being recorded:
The learned GP seeks a days time to obtain instructions regarding the decision of the 2nd respondent-DLAC.
Sri. Ramkumar-learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri. John Varghese appearing for the petitioners, submitted that rejection of the Letter of Altruism by the Police Authority is
The court emphasized the dignity and individual respect of the petitioners, highlighting that refusal based on conjectures and suspicion was against constitutional imperatives.
The court ruled that the rejection of an organ donation application based on suspected financial exploitation without adequate evidence is arbitrary, emphasizing that altruistic intent must be evalua....
The court emphasized that altruistic organ donations must not be denied based solely on financial disparities, requiring thorough evaluation by the Authorisation Committee to prevent arbitrary reject....
The court ruled that the rejection of organ donation authorization lacked sufficient justification, emphasizing the need for credible evidence of altruism and allowing for further medical examination....
A Certificate of Altruism is not a prerequisite for submitting transplantation applications to the authorization committee.
A Certificate of Altruism is not mandatory for processing kidney donation applications, ensuring timely consideration by the Authorization Committee.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that decisions regarding organ transplantation should not be based on presumptions of exploitation due to the donor's social status, and the releva....
The court upheld the denial of kidney transplantation based on insufficient evidence of donor-recipient relationship and consent, aligning with the protective measures for women under the THOTA Act.
Altruism certificate not mandatory prerequisite for forwarding unrelated organ transplant applications; Authorization Committee decides necessity.
The court established that a Certificate of Altruism is not mandatory for organ transplantation approval, emphasizing the authority of the Authorization Committee in decision-making.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.