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.

JUDGMENT :

1. The 1^st petitioner is a kidney patient. The 2^nd petitioner proposes to donate the organ to the 1^st petitioner. They submitted requisite application for permission for transplantation of human organ.

2. The petitioners would submit that the 2^nd petitioner's husband was in business partnership with the 1^st petitioner and they have long acquaintance. It is due to such business relations and personal attachment that the 2^nd petitioner came forward to donate the organ. However, the District Level Authorisation Committee (DLAC) rejected the request of the petitioners for authorisation holding that their emotional bond is not proved and that the 2^nd petitioner is visibly weak. The 2^nd petitioner is having a child of three years old. On these premises, the application has been rejected.

3. The counsel for the petitioners would submit that Ext.P13 Physical and Mental Fitness Certificate given by the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam would prove that as many as eight Specialist Doctors have thoroughly examined the physical and mental condition of the 2^nd petitioner and have held that she is physically fit for donating the organ. The conclusions of the DLAC as regards Altruism are also not based on materials available on record. Therefore, Ext.P16 is liable to be set aside.

4. Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader pointed out that the DLAC also includes Doctors who have also examined the 2^nd petitioner. They found that the 2^nd petitioner is visibly weak and appears to be in poor health condition. She has a three year old child also. These factors raise concerns about her well-being post-donation.

5. The DLAC also considered the Altruism issue and came to a conclusion that the requirement of establishing a credible altruistic link between the donor and donee was not established.

6. Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioners have an efficacious alternate remedy by filing an Appeal before the State Level Authorisation Committee against Ext.P16 order. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. Notice to the 3^rd respondent is dispensed with in view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition.

8. Ext.P16 order of the DLAC is under challenge. In Ext.P16, the DLAC has held that the Committee has identified inconsistency in the statements provided by the recipient's representative regarding the connection between the donor and recipient family. The Committee found that the relationship between the donor and recipient's family is unconvincing. Further reason given by the DLAC for rejection of authorisation is that the 2^nd petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and is visibly weak and appears to be in poor health.

9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the husband of the 2^nd petitioner and the 1^st petitioner were partners in pineapple business for long years. If that be so, the petitioners can convince the DLAC by appropriate additional evidence regarding the altruism aspects.

10. As regards the findings on the medical condition of the 2^nd petitioner as indicated in Ext.P16, I find that a reputed hospital at Ernakulam has subjected the 2^nd petitioner to medical examination. The team consisted Specialists in Anaesthesia, Cardiology, Gastroenterology, General Medicine, Gynaecology, Psychiatry, Pulmonology and Urology. The medical team has reported that the 2^nd petitioner is found fit to donate the organ. Taking into consideration Ext.P13, I am of the view that the fact that on the date of presentation of the 2^nd petitioner she was visibly found weak, is not a sufficient reason to decline authorisation.

11. Taking into consideration the entire facts and taking into consideration the urgent requirement of transplantation of organ of the 1^st petitioner, I am of the view that the parties s