Latha vs State Of Kerala

N.Nagaresh, J

The petitioner challenges the non consideration of Authorisation Certificate issued by the 2nd respondent and the inaction from the 3rd respondent to expedite the procedure for kidney transplantation. The petitioner also seeks to direct the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P4 Authorisation Certificate issued by the 2nd respondent who is the statutory authority and expedite the procedure for renal transplantation at the earliest possible time considering the critical condition of the patient.

The petitioner states that she is the donor of her one kidney to her family friend. A joint application was submitted under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014. The said application was considered by the 2nd  respondent - District Level Authorisation Committee. A Police Verification Report was also obtained. A certificate of Altruism has been granted. The petitioner was thereupon permitted to donate the organ as applied for.

When the petitioner was taken into operation theatre for surgical procedure, her son requested to see his mother before surgery. There was a verbal exchange and the Surgeon was not ready to conduct the surgery.

The petitioner submits that this unfortunate situation occurred as her son was tensed under a panic attack and was overwhelmed by emotions, as the mother was being taken for surgery of serious nature. The petitioner or her son did not conduct themselves in any violent manner. The sole reason for the incident was the sentiments of the young son. Now, the 3rd respondent is refusing to accept Ext.P4 Certificate and refusing to conduct the surgery.

Though notice was issued to the 3rd respondent and writ petition was posted for admission on 16.12.2021, there was no representation for the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition was adjourned to this date.

There is no representation for the 3rd respondent today also.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

The surgical procedure was fixed for transplantation of the kidney of the petitioner to a donee. The surgery could not be performed due to unfortunate circumstances where the son of the petitioner became panicky and there were some altercations with officials of the 3rd respondent. Such an incident arising out of emotional problems cannot be a reason to deny transplantation of organ to a genuine donee. As a responsible institution, it is the duty of a Hospital to conduct the transplantation when the District Level Authorisation Committee has issued Ext.P4 Authorisation Certificate and the Deputy Superintendent of Police has issued a Certificate of Altruism.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the 3rd respondent is directed to expedite the procedure for kidney transplantation as authorised under Ext.P4 at the earliest, if there is no other impediments in transplantation.