Court emphasized adaptability of medical authorization under Transplantation Act in light of changed circumstances.

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2026 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner is a patient undergoing treatment for kidney-related problems at the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. The second petitioner is the proposed donor. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

“a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to transfer Ext.P10 order along with the applications and the documents to the 3rd respondent and direct the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioners to undergo unrelated renal transplantation surgery at Westfort Hospital, Thrissur, on the strength of Ext.P10 order;

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P13 representation, within a time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.”

2. When the second petitioner came to know about the disease of the first petitioner, he expressed his readiness to donate his kidney. Thereafter Ext.P5 Form 11 application and Ext.P6 joint affidavit were executed. Since the petitioners are not close relatives, they approached the fourth respondent- the Convener, Local Committee of Organ Transplantation, Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam with the necessary application and documents except the altruism certificate, to refer the matter to the second respondent- the District Level Authorisation Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs at Ernakulam for getting approval. Since the District Police Chief has not issued the letter of altruism, the fourth respondent did not forward the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this court by filing W.P(C) No.42179/2024 for a direction to the fourth respondent to forward the joint application to the second respondent for approval. This Court, by Ext.P9 judgment, directed the fourth respondent to forward the application to the second respondent. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the fourth respondent forwarded the application to the second respondent and permission was granted.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first petitioner, who was undergoing treatment for renal issues at the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam, had applied for permission to undergo unrelated renal transplantation through the second respondent before the fourth respondent, and the same was granted as per Ext.P10 order. However, it is further submitted that in a subsequent cross-match conducted at ACTIMoS Centre under Medical Trust Hospital, it was found that the transplantation was not feasible between the petitioners due to medical reasons, as evidenced by Ext.P11 report. It is further submitted that the first petitioner has discontinued treatment at Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam, and is presently undergoing treatment at Westfort Hospital, Thrissur and after evaluation and treatment, the said hospital has found him fit to undergo renal transplantation with the second petitioner, as evidenced by certificate issued by the Westfort Hospital, Thrissur, as evidenced by Ext.P12.

4. The petitioners submit that, as Ext.P10 order permits them to undergo renal transplantation only at Medical Trust Hospital, they could not undergo the procedure at Westfort Hospital, Thrissur. Therefore, the petitioners seek to change the name of the hospital in Ext.P10 order from Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam to Westfort Hospital, Thrissur. It is further submitted that since the West Fort Hospital is coming under the third respondent, the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation