Telangana High Court
Anne Siva Ram vs The State Of Telangana on 8 November, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 30623 OF 2024
ORDER:
Vide order dated 25.09.2024 impugned in this Writ Petition, the 2nd respondent State Authorisation Committee for Organ Transplant rejected permission for transplantation citing the reason that there is financial disparity between donor and recipient and that the Committee is not convinced regarding altruistic nature.
2. Petitioner, it is stated, is suggested to undergo renal kidney transplantation. Though his family is ready to donate kidney, they were declared ineligible. Seeing his plight, his family friend Mondi Ravi voluntarily came forward to donate kidney and accordingly, they made an Application to the 2nd respondent for permission. It is the grievance of petitioner that the 2nd respondent on assumptions and presumptions, with a mere suspicion of altruistic nature, rejected the Application, by order dated 15.05.2024. The said order was appealed before the 1st respondent on 12.07.2024. Questioning the inaction, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 25189 of 2024, wherein this Court granted interim order directing the 1st respondent to take decision in accordance with law within ten days. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent passed order dated 18.09.2024 setting aside the order of rejection and remanded the matter for fresh decision as per Human Organs Transplantation Act. Since the 2nd 2 respondent has not acted in the matter, petitioner is stated to have moved I.A.No. 2 of 2024 in the said Writ Petition, which was considered directing the 2nd respondent to take decision before 23.10.2024.
Pursuant thereto, it is stated, the 2nd respondent passed the order impugned which discloses non-application of mind.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy submits that petitioner's health is deteriorating day by day and the order impugned depicts the sorry state of affairs with the 2nd respondent. He placed reliance on the judgments of the composite State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Ratnakar Peddada v. State of Telangana 1 and C. Seshadri v. State of Telangana 2 apart from other judgments rendered by the Kerala High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that merely because donor is working with petitioner or that there is economic disparity, in the absence of tangible material, it cannot be construed that there would be financial consideration. He further submits that the approach of the Committee shall be pragmatic and its discretion has to be used judiciously and that mere suspicion or economic disparity cannot be a ground for rejection of approval.
4. Sri Anne Siva Ram, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent has placed on record the written instructions submitted 1 2018(5) ALD 617 2 2018(6) ALD 262 3 by the Director of Medical Education, Telangana, Hyderabad, wherein it is stated as follows:
"It is submitted that the Authorisation Committee vide Rc.No.17689/MAK/2024, dated 08.05.2024 concluded that the donor Mr. Ravi works for the petitioner, there is a big financial disparity between the donor and recipient, the recipient has young children of 8 years and 6 years age and the Committee is not convinced regarding altruistic nature of donation and permission was not granted."
"It is submitted that the donor is an employee of the recipient and have small kids of 8 years and 6 years.
In the physical interview conducted by the authorisation committee in the presence of the Doctors, there is no clarity established about the love and affection towards the donor and the recipient and as such rejection proceedings are issued which are impugned in the present Writ Petition, but the said proceedings are issued after thorough enquiry of the documents such as bank statements enclosed to the file as per provisions of the THOTA Act."
5. It is pertinent to note that the intent of law-makers in such critical issue of Organ Transplant is to ensure the sanctity of organ donation and to discourage any commercial/trade angle. It may be noted that the Act though does not enlist an exclusive set of parameters to objectively gauge the love and affection / genuineness of donation proposal, the Authorisation Committee is bestowed with 4 such an onerous responsibility to look over various aspects of the donation proposal, both singly and cumulatively, like the relationship of donor and recipient, financial status, documentation etc., and whatever the Committee deems expedient in a given case to approve the donation procedure. Neither can there be a universal strait-jacket formula nor an exclusive objective set of parameters that can be checked-out in a routine fashion to make approval decisions in such medical situations. Each case has to be looked at basing on its own merits and totality of facts and circumstances and on a case-by-case basis.
6. In the instant case, it is the specific recording of the Authorisation Committee that there is employer-employee relationship between the donor and recipient and there is financial disparity in the banking transaction statements furnished before the Committee, and on examining the situation, the Committee was not subjectively satisfied with the proposed donation.
7. This Court has perused the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As discussed above, and furthermore in cases of this nature involving organ transplantation / medical procedures, each case has to be looked at on its own merits and on its own footing and the decisions arrived at in one case cannot be said to apply mutatis mutandis in another case, merely because certain aspects match. Cases of this nature are not like any other 5 civil matter where similarity of facts may be predominant consideration. In cases involving such a crucial aspect of organ transplantation and medical procedures that could potentially have long-time after-effects, similarity of facts alone cannot be a sole determining factor, it is the cumulative consideration of facts and encompassing circumstances that need to be holistically considered, as the nobility of intent behind the organ transplantation procedure, the after-procedure medical care for long period, irreplaceable nature of human organs, are paramount.
8. Having considered the respective contentions, and from a perusal of the material on record, it is pertinent to note that the Authorisation Committee, after careful examination of the proposed donation case, has clearly recorded that that the donor Mr. Ravi works for the petitioner, there is a big financial disparity between the donor and recipient, the recipient has young children of 8 years and 6 years age and the Committee is not convinced regarding altruistic nature of donation. It is further recorded in the impugned proceedings that in the physical interview conducted by the authorization committee in the presence of the Doctors, there is no clarity established about the love and affection towards the donor and the recipient. The Committee was not convinced with the donation proposal after interviewing the donor. This Court, in the nature of facts and 6 circumstances of the case at hand, is not inclined to substitute the opinion of the Authorization Committee and override the decision taken by the Committee, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 8th November 2024 ksld