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
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
2018(5) ALD 617
2018(6) ALD 262
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
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
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
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
