Court No. 1. Writ Petition No. 4310 (MB) of 2010. Smt. Vandana Dixit. vs Visitor S.G.P.G.I. and others. Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.
Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
Sri Alok Mathur appearing for respondent no. 3 submitted that since
authorization committee of Apolo Hospital had already rejected the claim of
the petitioner in the absence of any authorization being taken from the
authorization committee of district Meerut which is the hospital based
authorization committee, the Fortis Hospital, Noida could not undertake the
treatment of the petitioner.
Sri Akhilesh Kalra appearing for the petitioner submitted that though
presently under the directive/order passed by this Court, the S.G.P.G.I. is
treating the petitioner but the transplantation, if it is to be undertaken, at
S.G.P.G.I. it would take more than six months further period and till all
this period, i.e. atleast till December 2010 the petitioner will be required to
undergo frequent dialysis and seeing the serious condition the delay in such
treatment may result into some untoward happening before the
transplantation could take place.
His further submission is that even under rule 6-A of the
Transplantation of Human Organs Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Rules’ ) on which the Fortis relies, there will be no necessity for having
further authorization by an authorization committee, may be the District
Committee of Meerut, i.e. hospital based authorization committee;
submission is that authorization committee has to be formed by the State
Government or Central Government, as the case may be. This authorization
committee has nothing to do with the specialized treatment i.e. whether the
organs (kidney) which is sought to be needed, matches to the
organs(kidney) of the recipient and whether such transplantation can be
done medically or not. All such things have to be considered by the Doctors
namely; the experts who are to form an opinion whether such
transplantation can be undertaken or not. The authorization committee is
only an ethics committee which is obliged to ensure that the conditions
which are given under rule 6(F)(A)(vii) of the Rules, in respect of the case
in hand stand fulfilled.
He further submits that the State Level Committee has already given
authorization and therefore, under rule 6(B)(A)(ii) there cannot be a further
requirement to have another clearance from the District Committee nor it is
mandatory under the Rules to seek such clearance from the hospital based
authorization Committee.
We, are prima-facie satisfied that once State Level Committee has
granted the approval/clearance, no further approval appears to be necessary
from the District Committee or hospital based committee.
We, therefore, feel that the issue need be considered in the light of
the Rules by the Fortis Hospital, Noida once again as suggested by Sri Alok
Mathur who appears for the respondent no. 3. We also take note of the fact
that the delay in treatment will cause irreparable loss to the patient.
On the request of Sri Alok Mathur, let this matte be taken up on 2nd
August 2010, as fresh. In the meantime the Fortis Hospital, Noida shall
reconsider the matter and shall apprise the court about the decision taken in
this regard.
Dated: 26.07.2010.
Vks.