IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31925 of 2010(M)
1. NOUSHAD K.K., AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. FOUSI N.K.,
3. KUNHU MOHAMMED K.B.,
4. PATHROSE,
5. LEELAMMA, W/O. PATHROSE, AGED 45 YEARS,
6. SUMI MOL, AGED 22 YEARS,
Vs
1. CHAIRMAN,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
3. THE DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :20/10/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.31925 OF 2010(M)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The first petitioner is a patient suffering from chronic renal
failure and undergoing dialysis. Second petitioner is his wife and
the 3rd petitioner is the father of the first petitioner. Fourth
petitioner is stated to be a resident of Nadeashala, Thodupuzha
in Idukki District and it is stated that he was employed under the
3rd petitioner for about 3 years. Fifth petitioner is the wife of the
4th petitioner and 6th petitioner, who is a B. Sc Nursing Student, is
the daughter of 4th and 5th petitioners.
2. It is stated that the first petitioner has been advised to
have an immediate kidney transplantation and was admitted in
the Medical Trust Hospital, 3rd respondent herein. It is the case of
the petitioners that the 4th petitioner had voluntarily consented to
donate one of his kidney to the first petitioner and that after
completing all the necessary documentation, the request was
placed before the first respondent in terms of the provisions
contained in the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994.
Accordingly, the matter was considered and Ext.P17 order was
WPC.No. 31925/2010
:2 :
passed by the first respondent on 18.9.2010 doubting the
altruism in the donation and accordingly the committee
unanimously decided to reject the proposal.
3. It is stated that thereupon the 3rd petitioner, the father
of the first petitioner, submitted Ext.P18 representation to the
Chief Minister and on the directions from the Chief Minister the
matter was reconsidered by the first respondent. However, again
by Ext.P19 order, the first respondent rejected the request,
suspecting the altruism in donation. It is on account of the above,
challenging Exts.P17 and P19, this writ petition has been filed.
4. A reading of both Exts.P17 and P19 shows that there
were contradictions in the statements and the responses given by
the patient, the donor and the relatives. It was therefore the first
respondent was persuaded to pass Exts.P17 and P19 orders
rejecting the request. Going by the contents of Exts.P17 and P19
orders, in my view, the suspicion expressed by the first
respondent cannot be said to be totally misplaced. Still fact
remains that, challenging these orders, this writ petition has been
filed not only by the patient, his wife and his father, but also the
donor, his wife and even his daughter has chosen to join the writ
petition as parties. This therefore indicates that, atleast now,
WPC.No. 31925/2010
:3 :
there is no reason to suspect the altruism in the offer made by the
4th petitioner for saving the life of the first petitioner. In that view
of the matter, I am persuaded to think that the matter needs an
immediate reconsideration.
5. Therefore, I quash Exts.P17 and P19 orders and direct
that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the first
respondent shall immediately reconsider the request and pass
immediate orders in the matter.
6. I take note of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners that the first petitioner is
still hospitalized and he is in immediate necessity of undergoing
surgery. I am sure that realizing the urgency of the situation, the
first respondent will give immediate attention to the matter and
pass orders in the matter.
7. Petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment before
the first respondent for compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/