IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31925 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. NOUSHAD K.K., AGED 35 YEARS, KADAPPALLY MOOLAYIL HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR PO., SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. 2. FOUSI N.K., CHITTEPARAMBIL HOUSE, DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI. 3. KUNHU MOHAMMED K.B., KADAPPALLY MOOLAYIL VEEDU, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR PO., SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. 4. PATHROSE, PERUMATTATHIL HOUSE, VADEESHALA P.O., MANAKKAD, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. LEELAMMA, W/O. PATHROSE, AGED 45 YEARS, PERUMATTATHIL HOUSE, NADEESHALA P.O., MANAKKAD, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. SUMI MOL, AGED 22 YEARS, PERUMATTATHIL HOUSE, VADASHEELA P.O., MANAKKAD, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL SRI.K.ABDUL HAK RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISATION COMMITTEE IN ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION FOR THE DISTRICTS OF ALAPPUZHA & ERNAKULAM, PRINCIPAL, T.D.MEDICAL COLLEGE, VANDANAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 005. 2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WPC NO31925/2010 -2- 3. THE DIRECTOR, (CHAIRMAN, LOCAL APPROVAL COMMITTEE OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION), MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL,KOCHI-16. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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/