Case at a Glance
A liver transplant surgeon, authorised through a certificate issued to Fortis Hospital, performed emergency transplants on three patients at BGS Global Hospital in February–March 2022. A former consultant of BGS, in a dispute over his contractual dues, filed a private complaint under Sections 18 and 20 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, and the Magistrate took cognizance. The Karnataka High Court held that the Act and Rules require registration of hospitals, not specific authorisation of individual surgeons, and that an expert on a registered hospital’s team may operate at another registered hospital. The criminal case was quashed.
BGS Global Hospital held a certificate of registration for liver transplantation from 30 October 2018 to 29 October 2023. Dr. Mahesh Gopasetty, a liver transplant surgeon, was authorised through a certificate issued to Fortis Hospital, Bannerghatta Road, valid from 20 November 2018 to 19 November 2023. On 11 October 2021 BGS asked the Appropriate Authority to add his name to its registration, and the request was accepted on 21 October 2021. Between 24 February and 1 March 2022 he performed liver transplants on three patients at BGS in emergent circumstances; the revised certificate listing him was issued on 18 March 2022.
The complainant, Dr. Sunil Shenvi, had been a consultant at BGS under a contract that was later terminated after a dispute over dues. On 11 March 2022 he issued a legal notice alleging non-payment and violation of the Act. Police declined to register his complaint, saying only the Appropriate Authority could investigate offences under the Act. He then filed a private complaint before the Magistrate; the Appropriate Authority reported no violation of Sections 18 or 20, yet the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, took cognizance on 29 August 2025. The doctors and the hospital company challenged the proceedings.
The Key Question Before the Court
Did a surgeon authorised through one registered hospital commit an offence under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act by performing emergency transplants at another registered hospital?
The Act Regulates Hospitals; Team Experts Can Operate Across Registered Hospitals
The parties had compromised and filed a joint affidavit, but Justice M. Nagaprasanna declined to close the case on that basis alone because the allegations arose under a special statute, and decided it on merits “albeit on the periphery.” Examining Sections 10, 13, 14, 18 and 20 of the Act and Rules 7 and 9 of the 1995 Rules, the Court found that the scheme requires registration of hospitals: “Unless such registration for a hospital is secured” transplant surgery is not permissible. It does not require individual surgeons to be specifically authorised for each hospital.
Following the Bombay High Court in Ajay Tejraj Oswal (Dr.) v. Joint Director of Health Services, (2011) 07 BOM CK 0141, the Court accepted that an expert who is a member of a registered hospital’s team may perform transplants at another registered hospital, and the Appropriate Authority cannot object. Since Dr. Gopasetty was registered through Fortis, “the contention that the doctor was not authorised to perform surgery is unacceptable.” On merits, the doctors “have not committed any offence under the Act,” and with the parties having settled there was “no warrant for continuation of proceedings.”
What the Court Actually Held
- The THOT Act and the 1995 Rules require registration of hospitals; they do not require specific authorisation of individual surgeons for each hospital.
- An expert on a registered hospital’s team may perform transplants at another registered hospital, following Ajay Tejraj Oswal (Dr.) v. Joint Director of Health Services.
- No offence under Section 18 or Section 20 of the Act was made out against the doctors or the hospital.
- Both writ petitions were allowed, and the proceedings in C.C. No. 33487 of 2025, including the taking of cognizance, were quashed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It removes the threat of criminal prosecution for transplant surgeons who step in during emergencies at another registered hospital.
- It clarifies the regulatory focus of the Act: hospital registration and team composition, not a hospital-by-hospital licence for each surgeon.
- It shows that a compromise alone does not end proceedings under a special statute; the court still tests the merits.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Hospitals and Surgeons
- Keep hospital registration and expert-team lists under the THOT Act current.
- Document emergent circumstances when a team expert from another registered hospital operates.
- Seek inclusion of visiting surgeons in the registration promptly, as was done here.
For Counsel
- Rely on the hospital-registration scheme of Sections 10 and 14 and Rule 9 when defending surgeons.
- Cite Ajay Tejraj Oswal for cross-hospital practice by team experts.
- Point to the Appropriate Authority’s report where it finds no violation.
Key Takeaways
- The THOT Act registers hospitals, not individual surgeons.
- A team expert of one registered hospital can operate at another.
- No offence under Sections 18 or 20 was made out.
- Cognizance and the criminal case were quashed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a transplant surgeon need separate authorisation for every hospital?
According to this ruling, no. The Act and Rules require hospitals to be registered; an expert who is part of a registered hospital’s team may perform transplants at another registered hospital.
What offences were alleged against the doctors?
Sections 18 and 20 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, relating to removal of organs without authority and contravention of other provisions.
Did the settlement between the parties end the case?
The Court noted the compromise but decided the matter on merits because it arose under a special statute, finding no offence made out.
Conclusion
The ruling protects emergency transplant care from criminal exposure where the surgeon is part of a registered hospital’s expert team and the operating hospital is itself registered. It also reaffirms that the Act’s gatekeeping is at the hospital level.
Practical takeaway: For transplant prosecutions, first check hospital registration and the surgeon’s team membership under the THOT Act — if both are in order, a charge of unauthorised surgery is unlikely to survive.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com