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

2010 Supreme(Ori) 23

AIR 2010 Ori 99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
I.M. Quddusi, A.C.J. and Sanju Panda, JJ.
Manoranjan Rout and Anr. – Appellant
Vs.
State of Orissa and Ors. – Respondent
Decided On: 12.01.2010

The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing the relationship between the donor and recipient for transplantation approval, the subjective satisfaction of the Authorization Committee, and the absence of material to deny necessary approval.

Headnote:

Authorization Committee - Kidney Transplantation - Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, Sections 3, 9, Rules 6, 6F - The court discussed the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, and Rules 6, 6F, emphasizing the definition of 'donor' and 'recipient,' the restrictions on removal and transplantation of human organs, and the evaluation criteria for approval of transplantation. The court highlighted the importance of establishing the relationship between the donor and recipient, the subjective satisfaction of the Authorization Committee, and the absence of material to deny necessary approval.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner No. 1, a doctor suffering from Renal Failure, sought a kidney transplant from Petitioner No. 2, his father's sister's son. The Authorization Committee refused to grant NOC despite compliance with requirements, citing lack of established emotional bond or relationship.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Committee did not consider the application as per the court's direction, and the doctor's condition necessitated urgent transplantation. The court emphasized the importance of establishing the relationship between the donor and recipient and directed the Authorization Committee to grant necessary approval.

Issues: The issues revolved around the refusal of the Authorization Committee to grant NOC for kidney transplantation, the compliance with the Act and Rules, and the establishment of the relationship between the donor and recipient.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of material to disprove the relationship between the donor and recipient should not be a ground for denial of necessary approval. It emphasized the subjective satisfaction of the Authorization Committee and the importance of complying with the Act and Rules.

Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Authorization Committee to grant necessary No Objection Certificate to the Petitioners.

JUDGMENT

Sanju Panda, J.

1. Petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Authorization Committee which was communicated vide letter No. 12210 dated 16.11.2009 as the same violates the direction of this Court dated 30.10.2009 passed in W.P.(C) No. 14344 of 2009.

2. Petitioner No. 1, a doctor working as the Chief Medical Officer, Ispat Hospital, Mecon, Ranchi in the district of Jharkhand, is suffering from Renal Failure & being treated at Appolo Hospital, Chennai. The doctor of the Appolo Hospital recommended for Kidney Transplantation as soon as possible & his case was referred for Kidney Transplantation to the Kalinga Hospital (P) Ltd., Chandrashekharpur, Bhubaneswar. The view of the doctors of Kalinga Hospital is that there is no other alternative than to transplant the Kidney to save his life. Therefore, Petitioner No. 1 searched for kidney from his near relatives. As his wife & other family members' blood group did not match, he searched for a kidney from his other relatives & finally Petitioner No. 2 agreed to donate one of his kidneys which matched with Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is the father's sister's son of Petitioner No. 1. They applied to the Authorization Committee through Kalinga Hospital for Issuance of No objection Certificate so that Petitioner No. 2-doner can donate one of his kidneys to No. 1. The said Committee did not consider the application & called for some further document though the Petitioners had complied with all the requirements. However, on 11.5.2009 the Committee refused to issue NOC. The said order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11750 of 2009 which was disposed of on 12.8.2009 with a direction to the Authorization Committee to examine whether transplantation of human organ is absolutely necessary or not & whether the donor is the father's sister's son of Petitioner No. 1. No Objection Certificate was refused by the Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department all the ground that the emotional bond or relationship between the donor & the donee had not been established. Challenging the refusal, Petitioner No. 1 filed W.P. (C) No. 14344 of 2009 which was disposed of on 30.10.2009. This Court while quashing the order of refusal to grant NOC specifically observed that there is no provision in the Act, which prohibits a person, 'who is not a near relative' from donating a Kidney for transplantation. This Court further observed that when the blood group of the near relatives did not match, Petitioner No. 2 volunteered to donate his kidney out of affection & attachment with Petitioner No. 1 & directed the Committee to take a decision as early as possible preferably within a week of production of copy of the Judgment. Accordingly, Petitioner No. 1 submitted the certified copy of the Judgment on 10.11.2009 before the Directorate of Medical Education & Training, Orissa (in short, "DMET"). On 12.11.2009 the DMET instructed over telephone to the Superintendent of Kalinga Hospital that the applicant may be present along with his donor at 3.30 P.M. on 12.11.2009. Even though- Petitioner No. 1 had undergone dialysis on the same day, he appeared before the DMET at about 8.30 PM in the night & prior to that also the Committee sat on 16.10.2009 & directed the Superintendent, Kalinga Hospital to produce the documentary evidence of relationship between Petitioner No. 1 & Petitioner No. 2. Even though everything was submitted before the Committee, vide Order Dated 16.11.2009 it again refused to grant NOC observing as follows:

XXX XXX XXX

In respect of Dr. Manoranjan Rout, it is stated that, this case was taken up for consideration in pursuance of the orders dt. 30.10.2009 of the Hon'ble High Court, Orissa in W.P.(O) No. 14344/09. During pendency of this Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court, the case of Dr. Rout was also review again by the Authorization Committee in its last meeting dt. 16.10.2009. In pursuance to another orders of Hon'ble High Court dt. 24.09.2009 in W.P.













































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top