SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5063

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
M.Maya Boopathi - Appellant
Vs.
The Authorisation Committee (Transplantation), Represented by its Chairman, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010 - Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.30183 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.25402 of 2024
Decided On : 07-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth
For the Respondent:Mr.T.Amjad Khan, Government Advocate

Courts can waive procedural requirements like no objection certificates for organ donation in urgent cases, prioritizing patient health over formalities.

Headnote:(A) Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 - Requirement of no objection certificate for renal transplantation - Second petitioner, a cousin of first petitioner, voluntarily donating kidney for transplantation due to urgent medical need, while estranged wife’s consent is a barrier - Court directed to process application without insisting on no objection certificate given the family circumstances. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 10, 12)

(B) Judicial Discretion - Courts may waive procedural requirements such as no objection certificates in exigent circumstances to avoid delay in life-saving operations. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners seek kidney transplantation approval, facing obstacles due to estranged marital status and requirement of consent from the non-communicative estranged wife. First petitioner suffers severe kidney failure and urgently requires transplantation; second petitioner is willing to donate.

Findings of Court:
Court orders the second respondent to process the application for transplant authorization without the no objection certificate from the estranged wife, considering the urgency and circumstances surrounding the petitioners.

Issues: Whether the absence of a no objection certificate from an estranged spouse can impede the application for renal transplantation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established a precedent that hospitals handling organ transplants should prioritize life-saving needs over procedural formalities, particularly when familial relationships hinder compliance, hence allowing waiver of documentation in life-critical situations.

Result: Writ Petition stands disposed of with directions given.

Table of Content
1. approval for kidney transplantation requires specific documents. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. urgency in health condition clashes with mandatory requirements. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court emphasizes need for discretion in non-relative donations. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. court directs urgent processing of transplantation application. (Para 12)
5. the writ petition is disposed of with directions. (Para 13)

ORDER :

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.12.2024 seeking for grant of approval for kidney transplantation from the 2nd petitioner to the 1st petitioner without insisting no objection certificate from the 3rd respondent.

2. Private notice to the third respondent effected, proof filed on 02.01.2025 and the name of 3rd respondent is printed in cause list. By consent of other parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. The first petitioner is the cousin of the second petitioner, who is suffering from end level kidney failure, who is undergoing dialysis twice a week. The Doctor, who is treating the first petitioner has recommended surgical extraction and transplantation of the kidney for the first petitioner to survive. The first petitioner is 40 years old and he has two children. The second petitioner has voluntarily come forward to donate one of his kidneys to the first petitioner, following which, the physician concerned confirmed that the second petitioner's blood would be matched with the blood group that of the first petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioners approached the second respondent to perform the kidney transplantation. Since the second petitioner is not a near relative as defined under Section 2 (i) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, the second petitioner has submitted a supporting affidavit to that effect before the second respondent and the petitioners have submitted all the relevant documents as required by the second respondent. However, the second respondent, without forwarding the same to the first respondent, required the petitioners to get no objection certificate from the estranged wife of the second petitioner.

4. The third respondent is the second petitioner's estranged wife and they have separated for more than five years and a divorce petition in OP No.803 of 2024 is pending before the Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram. Since the first petitioner is urgently in need of renal transplantation, the second petitioner is unable to get no objection certificate from his wife. Further, both the parents of the second petitioner also died on 24.10.2008 and 04.05.2021. The second petitioner, through his estranged wife, has two children, ie., a boy and a girl. In the absence of no objection certificate from the third respondent, the second respondent is reluctant to forward the petitioner's request for organ donation to the first respondent. Hence, the petitioners made a representation on 09.12.2024 to the second respondent to forward the application submitted by them to the first respondent for getting authorisation for renal transplantation. Since the same is not considered, this writ petition came to be filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that all the formalities required for effecting renal transplantation and all the documents required by the second respondent except no objection certificate of the third respondent have already been submitted by the petitioners duly before the second respondent. Even thereafter, in the absence of the third respondent's no objection certificate, the second respondent, despite the critical health condition of the first petitioner, is hesitant in forwarding the petitioner's application to the first respondent so as to facilitate authorisation for renal transplantation by the first respondent. Any further delay in the said exercise would result in loosing the first petitioner and hence,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top