Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Surya Kant, J.
Poonam Gupta
Versus
State Of Punjab
Decided On : APRIL 21, 2009
(B) Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, Ss.9(3) & 2(i)--Bar on donation of Human Organs by strangers--If the donor is found to be misrepresenting the facts, the authority can draw an inference, that he is not a bona fide donor.
(C) Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, Ss.9(3) & 2(i)--Bar on donation of Human Organs by strangers--Act prohibits transplantation of human organ unless the donor is a near relative of the recipient--Relationship between the families of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 or the cause of their affection and attachment appears to be too hazy to be accepted out rightly--Appropriate Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, both have strongly doubted the humanitarian relationship projected between the petitioner and respondent No.4--The attributes of the said doubt are as good as a categoric finding of fact as the same are not founded upon mere conjectures or surmises--No interference by High Court, called for in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (P.11 & 15)
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 5.2.2009 and 2.4.2009 (Annexures P-4 and p-9) passed by the "authorization Committee" and the "appellate Authority" respectively, whereby prior permission for transplantation of kidney sought to be donated by respondent No.4 (donor) to the petitioner (recipient) has been declined.
2. The petitioner who was detected to be suffering from high blood pressure in the year 1994, was unfortunately diagnosed with renal failure in the year 1998 and is stated to be undergoing treatment from various hospitals including Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana and Silver Oaks Hospital, SAS Nagar (Mohali ). In the year 2008, the petitioner was stated to have been advised transplantation of the kidney by the doctors as both of her kidneys have stopped functioning completely.
3. The petitioner found a willing donor in respondent No.4 and therefore, sought "prior approval" of the Authorization Committee in terms Of Sec.9 (3) of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (in short the act ). The Authorization Committee vide its order dated 5.2.2009 (Annexure P-4) declined the permission. The petitioner preferred an appeal as provided under Section 17 of the Act but the same has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 2.4.2009 (Annexure P-9 ).
4. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. I have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned orders as well as other documents on record.
6. Before adverting to the contentions raised by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it may be noticed here that the petitioner is more than 46 years old and a mother of two major children. Her husband is serving in a nationalized bank. Respondent No.4 (Sonu dhir) is a 26 years old young married woman and is mother of two small children. Her husband, Vinay Dhir, is reportedly employed in a private job.
7. The petitioner and respondent No.4 jointly applied in the prescribed format seeking prior permission for transplantation of respondent No.4s kidney to the petitioner. Each one of them, the petitioner, her husband - Vimal Gupta, respondent No.4 - Sonu dhir, and her husband -Vinay Dhir, made a statement on oath before the Additional deputy Commissioner (General) on 28.11.2008 (Annexure P-6) that they are close relatives. The husband of the petitioner, however, candidly admitted before the authorization Committee that respondent no.4 is not related to them except that both the families know each other for the last about 17 years. The husband of respondent no.4 stated that he knew the petitioner since the year 1986-87 when he had been working with Shri Vinod Chhabra, CA as he was statedly residing in the adjoining house of the petitioner. The husband of respondent no.4 worked for about 3-4 years only at ludhiana. It may be mentioned here that in the entire correspondence including the application form, respondent No.4 and her husband are shown to be residents of House no.105/45, Gaushala Road, Fazilka, District ferozepun The husband of respondent No.4 has explained that after the death of his mother, the petitioner helped him a lot and besides making frequent visits to the petitioners house, his marriage with respondent No.4 was also arranged by the petitioner. In sum and substance, the plea taken by respondent No.4 and her husband was that the kidney was decided to be donated out of sheer love and affection and not for any monetary considerations.
8. While dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Authority has concluded as follows:-
"i heard both the parties today on 2.4.2009. The submissions made in the appeal were reiterated by the appellant. I enquired as to why the brothers and sisters of mrs. Poonam Gupta were not coming forward to offer their kidneys. The appellant replied that she did not have cordial relations with her brothers and sisters. After hearing both the parties, I come to the conclusion th
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
