Back
Ranjeet Kumar Ghosh: Allows Kidney Donation By Driver's Wife, No
In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of genuine altruistic organ donation, the has set aside the refusal of the to permit a kidney transplant from a non-relative donor to a patient suffering from chronic kidney disease. Justice Krishna Rao, presiding over a constitutional writ petition, held that the committee's rejection was not in accordance with the statutory framework, particularly when no evidence of or involvement of was found.
The Life-Saving Quest: A Chronic Patient's Plea
Ranjeet Kumar Ghosh, the petitioner, had been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease and advised renal transplantation by doctors at . After his family members were found unsuitable as donors, the wife of his driver—a woman with a compatible blood group—voluntarily stepped forward to donate one of her kidneys. The proposed donor and Ghosh jointly applied for approval under the , submitting medical fitness certificates and affidavits.
Verification and Roadblocks: A Tale of Two Committees
A police inquiry conducted through the
, found
"no unofficial dealing in cash or kind between the donor and the recipient"
and confirmed the absence of any middleman. Despite this clean chit, the
did not recommend the transplant. It pointed to discrepancies: the donor's husband had stated he had been driving since
, but his driving licence was issued only on
. Additionally, no documentary evidence was produced to prove his employment through a car centre since
.
The , after examining the donor, her husband, and the recipient's wife, concluded that they had failed to satisfactorily establish their relationship. The committee refused permission, citing the licence issue and the lack of proof regarding the husband's driving history.
Court's Scrutiny: Love and Affection Over Bureaucratic Hurdles
Justice Rao perused the video-recorded statements of the parties. The donor stated she had known Ghosh for four years, describing him as "Kaku" (uncle), and said she was donating out of love and concern after witnessing his deteriorating health. Her husband confirmed driving Ghosh to hospitals for dialysis through a car centre booking.
The court examined the relevant provisions—Section 9(3) of the Act and —which allow non-relative donations motivated by "" subject to . The court also relied on the 's judgment in , which held that the Authorization Committee must ascertain the true intent behind the donation and that the burden on applicants should not be excessive in the absence of indicating financial dealings.
Key Observations from the Bench
The court made pivotal observations that shaped the outcome:
"Too much of burden cannot be laid on the shoulders of the applicants, unless there is to establish that there are financial dealing involving the parties, permission ought not to be withheld or rejected."
"If the donor states that out of her love and affection, he/she is making the donation, in the absence of any credible reason, the averment should not be doubted."
The court noted that the police report had already ruled out and . The donor's annual income was ₹1.48 lakh, and her statements reflected genuine affection. The discrepancy in the driving licence—while a factual inconsistency—did not, by itself, indicate any or undermine the donor's stated intent.
The Verdict: A Second Chance for Life
Justice Krishna Rao set aside the decision of the , quashing its refusal order. The court directed the committee to reconsider Ghosh's request and take an appropriate decision within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition was allowed, and the parties were authorized to act on the server copy of the judgment.
This ruling reinforces the principle that in the absence of of , the of a donor should be respected, and bureaucratic hurdles should not stand in the way of life-saving transplants.
