The court upheld the denial of kidney transplantation based on insufficient evidence of donor-recipient relationship and consent, aligning with the protective measures for women under the THOTA Act.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging, Ext.P3 and P4 orders passed by respondents 2 and 3.

2. According to the petitioners 2^nd petitioner is a chronic kidney patient who is undergoing treatment and he is in emergent need of kidney transplantation. 2^nd petitioner is in good relationship with the husband of the 1^st petitioner for more than seven years. Out of humanitarian consideration, 1^st petitioner voluntarily decided to donate one of her kidneys to the 2^nd petitioner due to the affinity and attachment with the family of the 2^nd petitioner. Pre transplant evaluation was conducted by the hospital and police verification certificate was also obtained. Though the petitioners approached the 3^rd respondent District Level Authorisation Committee for renal transplantation, 3^rd respondent declined the request by passing Ext.P3 order without considering the documents submitted by the petitioners and by ignoring the police verification report. Though the petitioners preferred appeal before the 1^st respondent, the appeal was also dismissed as per Ext.P4 order, confirming the findings in Ext.P3. Challenging Exts.P3 and P4 orders, petitioners have approached this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Exts.P3 and P4 orders passed by the respondents are arbitrary and the said orders are passed without proper application of mind and not in accordance with the legal perspectives as envisaged under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act , 1994 and Rule 2014 (for short ‘THOTA Act and Rules) and therefore it is in violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioners. It was contended that the respondents passed Exts.P3 and P4 orders based on incorrect assumptions, such as alleged discrepancies in the oral statements of the petitioners and by doubting their versions without any valid grounds. It was further contended that in spite of the certificate of Altruism issued by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Karunagappally, specifically stating that he is fully convinced that the 1^st petitioner is donating the kidney out of love and courtesy without any other consideration, 3^rd respondent declined the application without any basis and disregarded the report of the Certificate of Altruism that the 1^st petitioner is donating the kidney out of humanitarian consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondents failed to consider the fact that the 1^st petitioner, who is the donor has been associated with the recipient family for the past seven years and the donor and recipient have been informed about the provisions of , 1994 and Rules. It was contended that due to the rejection of the application, the life of the 2^nd petitioner is in limbo According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the rejection of the application was based on surmises, conjunctions and assumptions.

5. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Shareef K.M and another v State of Kerala and others ( 2017 (4) KHC 122 ) wherein it was held that rejection of the application on the ground of gross financial disparity is improper and the disparity in financial status of the parties is not a ground to decline the approval for transplantation and if the circumstances indicate a possible relationship for one person to donate his organ to save the life of another, approval sought has to be granted. The learned counsel also placed reliance the decision of the Madras High Court in Sudha Mathesan v. Authorisation Committee (Transplantation), Coimbatore (2024 KHC 4373) wherein it was held that unless there is a definite material to establish that there are financial dealings involving the parties, permissi