[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Usha V.P vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2025
2025:KER:96641
MACA No.36835/2025
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 36835 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
1 USHA V.P,
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O. SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT SANKAR VILLA, NUT
STREET,VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST, PIN - 673104
2 SABEENA R,
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O. SIDDIQUE, RESIDING AT PATTAVAYAL VEEDU,
PALLIMUKKU, ERAVIPURAM,KOLLAM DIST, PIN - 691011
BY ADV SHRI.K.SANDESH RAJA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH & FAMILY
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE FOR RENAL
TRANSPLANTATION,
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,PRINCIPAL, GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE,
HMT COLONY, NORTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN -
683503
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL AUTHORISATION COMMITTEE FOR RENAL
TRANSPLANTATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER,LAKE SHORE HOSPITAL,
NETTOOR P.O.,ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN - 682040
4 LAKESHORE GLOBAL LIFECARE,
2025:KER:96641
MACA No.36835/2025
..2..
LAKESHORE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD., XVI/612,
MARADU, NETTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST. REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 682040
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY
SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
SHRI.AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY
SMT.TESSA ROSE
SHRI.CLINT JUDE LEWIS
SHRI. MATHEW ANGELO DAVIS
SMT.ANANDITHA RAJEEV
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.12.2025, THE COURT ON 16.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:96641
MACA No.36835/2025
..3..
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P12 and P16 orders
passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively. The first petitioner is a
chronic kidney patient and the second petitioner is the donor. Not being
relatives, they filed Ext.P1 joint application under Section 9(5) of the
Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. The second
respondent rejected Ext.P1 application by Ext.P12 order, which was
affirmed by the first respondent as per Ext.P16 order. Aggrieved by this,
the petitioners have come up before this Court.
2. Though several grounds have been raised and multiple
reliefs sought in the writ petition, at the time of hearing, the learned
counsel for the petitioner confined the prayers to the grievance relating
to the rejection of Ext.P1 joint application as evidenced by Exts.P12 and
P16 orders.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the second respondent without any proper reason rejected Ext.P1
application. It is further submitted that the second respondent failed to
consider Ext.P3 Certificate of Altruism dated 10.03.2025 as well as
Ext.P9 letter dated 31.12.2024 produced from the Member of
Parliament, Kozhikode. As regards the link between the donor and the
2025:KER:96641
..4..
recipient, the learned counsel submitted that the recipient's son-in-law,
Sri.Sajith, was an electrician, who takes contract works of an IT based
company, wherein the donor's husband was working, and thus, they
became friends. It is further submitted that, both the Committee failed
to consider the Certificate of Altruism, which very clearly substantiates
that no commercial transaction was involved in the afore case, and that,
the finding in Exts.P12 and P16 that the petitioners failed to establish a
credible link between them and to prove emotional attachment, is
without considering the documents and facts.
4. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand,
submitted that Exts.P12 and P16 rejection orders were on valid
grounds; and the petitioners failed to prove the link between them; and
hence, Exts.P12 and P16 orders do not call for any interference by this
Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader.
6. Ext.P3 is the Certificate of Altruism, wherein the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kollam City, stated that the second
petitioner herein has voluntarily consented to donate one of her kidneys
to the first petitioner herein, upon her free will. Further, in Ext.P9 letter
2025:KER:96641
..5..
issued by the Member of Parliament, Kozhikode, it is stated that both
parties are known to her and no commercial transaction is involved in
the case. The second respondent, while considering the issue, found,
with regard to the relationship between the donor and the recipient,
that the parties failed to establish a satisfactory link between them or
the circumstances that prompted the offer of kidney donation.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on
Exts.P17 and P18 judgments, on similar facts. In Ext.P17 judgment, this
Court found that the Certificate of Altruism issued by the police and the
similar certificate issued by a Member of Parliament ought to have been
considered by the Committee, while considering the applications. Here,
in this case, the Committee failed to take into consideration Ext.P3
Certificate of Altruism as well as Ext.P9 certificate issued by the
Member of Parliament and found in Ext.P12 that, the conditions of
voluntariness and altruism have not been satisfied in the case; and
accordingly, holding that the application for live kidney donation
between the parties does not meet the mandatory conditions for
approval in the absence of substantial proof of a genuine emotional
bond, coupled with concerns about the donor's health and vulnerability,
the application was rejected.
7. Similar findings were recorded in Ext.P16, wherein it
2025:KER:96641
..6..
was held that the parties failed to establish a clear, consistent, and
emotionally compelling bond between them. Furthermore, the donor has
two children, and her husband is a patient with blood pressure issues
and suffers from memory loss. The appellate authority found that
though no financial transaction was established, they failed to prove
emotional altruistic connection between them.
8. The second respondent is seen to have relied only on
the inconsistency of statements given by the son-in-law of the recipient
and the husband of the donor and did not consider the documents
produced by the applicants in its proper perspective. Considering the
afore facts, I am of the opinion that one more opportunity has to be
given to the petitioners to prove their relationship or link between them,
which led to the afore kidney donation.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. Exts.P12 and P16
orders are set aside. The second respondent is directed to reconsider
the matter afresh after affording opportunities to the parties to adduce
fresh evidence. All other prayers in the writ petition are left open.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
2025:KER:96641
..7..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 36835 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17/01/2025
FOR APPROVAL OF TRANSPLANTATION FROM LIVING
DONOR SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED NIL OF THE
LOCAL APPROVAL COMMITTEE OF ORGAN
TRANSPLANTATION AT LAKESHORE HOSPITAL
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ALTRUISM
NO.390/GL/2025-QS DATED 10/03/2025 ISSUED BY
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM
CITY
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS ATTESTED BY ADVOCATE & NOTARY
DATED 17/01/2025
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER ATTESTED BY ADVOCATE & NOTARY
DATED 17/01/2025
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER'S HUSBAND ATTESTED BY ADVOCATE &
NOTARY DATED 17/01/2025
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT GIVEN BY THE MOTHER
OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ATTESTED BY ADVOCATE &
NOTARY DATED 17/1/2025
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT GIVEN BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER ATTESTED BY ADVOCATE & NOTARY
DATED 21/03/2025
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED 31/12/2024
ISSUED BY DR. P.T. USHA, MEMBER OF
PARLIAMENT, RAJYASABHA [NOMINATED]
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
LAKESHORE HOSPITAL DATED 9/12/2024
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MEDICAL
FITNESS OF LIVING DONOR UNDER FORM-4 OF THE
RULES DATED 15/04/2025
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO,156/2024/DLAC DATED
09/06/2025 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LEVEL
AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 28/06/2025
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
2025:KER:96641
..8..
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/07/2025 IN
W.P.[C] NO.25477/2025 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.[MS] NO.242/2024/H&FWD
DATED 25/9/2024
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.[RT] NO.2943/2025/H&FWD
DATED 25/9/2025
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.[C]
NO.33347/2024 DATED 14/10/2024 OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/05/2025 IN
W.P.[C] NO.16554/2025 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
