Routine police verification for altruism certificate not mandatory; Authorization Committee to decide necessity.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the proposed donor of a kidney patient named Ms.Haleema Izza has approached this Court stating that the doctors who are treating the patient have advised kidney transplantation for the patient. Since the kidney of the close relatives of the patient are not suitable to transplant, the petitioner who is a family friend of the patient has informed her readiness and willingness to donate her kidney. According to the petitioner, it is purely out of altruism and due to love and affection, she has decided to donate her kidney. According to the petitioner, though she approached the 3^rd respondent they have issued Ext.P10 letter stating that Altruism certificate cannot be issued on account of the negative recommendation given by the Station House Officer, North Paravur Police Station. It is contended by the petitioner that the 3^rd respondent mechanically issued Ext.P10 letter without proper investigation and without appreciating correct facts. According to the petitioner, the report of the 3^rd respondent is not necessary to decide the matter to sanction approval for unrelated kidney transplantation.

2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even though she and the patient produced the entire documents along with Ext.P9 application for approval of unrelated kidney transplantation, the 2^nd respondent has not forwarded it to the 1^st respondent for approval for want of positive altruism certificate from the 3^rd respondent. 2^nd respondent has no authority to insist a report from the 3^rd respondent. Hence this writ petition to direct respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate and effective steps to issue approval for unrelated kidney transplantation in respect of Ext.P9 application within a stipulated time and also to direct the 3^rd respondent to forward a fresh report regarding altruism of the petitioner in the event of request from the 1^st respondent.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The question whether a Certificate of Altruism is mandatory to accept the applications along with its supporting documents to be considered by the concerned authorisation committee was considered by this court in Shoukathali Pullikuzhiyil and another v. the District Level Authorization Committee and others [2017 (3) KHC 259] and it was held that verification through Police as a routine manner in all cases should be avoided and it is the Authorization Committee to take the decision.

5. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of with the following directions:

(a) The 2^nd respondent – Convener of Local Committee of Organ Transplantation of the Hospital concerned, will forward the Ext.P9 application of the petitioner and the patient, along with all necessary documents, except ‘Certificate of Altruism’, to the 1^st respondent – District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs (DLAC); and this shall be done within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(b) On the afore application reaching the 1^st respondent - DLAC, its competent Authority will notify the petitioner and inform whether she has to obtain a ‘Certificate of Altruism’ from the concerned Police Authority.

(c) If the DLAC is to find that no such Certificate is required in this case, they will complete the processes, leading to necessary permissions to be granted to the petitioner, within a period of one month thereafter.

(d) However, if, on the contrary, the DLAC is to find that ‘Certificate of Altruism’ is required to be obtained by the petitioner, they will intimate them of such within a period of two weeks from the date on which they receive application from the 2^nd respondent; upon w