Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: The Bench of Anu Sivaraman, J. hearing a petition pertaining to kidney transplantation and donation, directed the issue to be decided by Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs in accordance with Section 9(3) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994.

Petitioner’s application for kidney transplantation was placed before Medical Trust Hospital’s Organ Transplantation Committee (2nd respondent), but it was not forwarded to 1st respondent for want of favourable certificates by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP/3rd respondent).

In the instant case, the donor was the wife of one Anoop who was working as a Packing Supervisor at Amal Threads at Muvattupuzha. Owner of Amal Threads was the sister-in-law of petitioner herein. Elder child of the donor was suffering from epilepsy and under treatment. Petitioner and his family had agreed to make arrangements for treatment of the donor’s daughter.

The Court noted that 1st respondent is the authority empowered to consider the issue of transplantation of human organs where the donor is a known person is to be considered as per Section 9 (3) of the Act. All relevant aspects, including the relationship between the parties, bonafides of the application, whether any amounts have changed hands – all these matters must be considered by 1st respondent in accordance with law. The report of DSP is liable to be considered by 1st respondent while passing such orders.

In view of the above, the petitioner’s application was directed to be forwarded to 1st respondent along with the DSP’s report. 1st respondent was directed to consider petitioner’s application taking note of all the relevant aspects, and consider whether the donation was being done on an altruistic basis. It was directed that orders on the said application be passed with notice to donor and donee within two weeks, and after considering whether the donor was fully aware of the consequences of her action. [Asees Moitheen v. District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 749, Order dated 28-02-2019]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of Arun Mishra and Indira Banerjee, JJ. allowed an appeal while setting aside the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court concerning a ‘gift deed’.

In the present case, the facts of the case are that the appellant executed a purported gift deed in favour of the respondent with the expectation that the respondent will look after the appellant and her husband. The said deed was to come into effect only after the death of the appellant and her husband. On 02-06-1999, the appellant executed the deed of cancellation and after a period of 8 months, respondent filed a suit for declaration that the cancellation deed executed by the appellant is null and void. Appellant filed original suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent or his men from trespassing or committing waste or mischief in suit property.

The Original Suit was challenged before the Munsif, however, it was decreed. The district court upheld the decree, but the High Court set aside the concurrent findings and dismissed the suit.

The Supreme Court on placing the analysis of provisions of Transfer of Property Act along with the decisions pertaining to the same subject matter stated that:

“A conditional gift with no recital of acceptance and no evidence in proof of acceptance, where possession remains with the donor as long as he is alive, does not become complete during lifetime of the donor. When a gift is incomplete and title remains with the donor the deed of gift might be cancelled.”

On placing reliance on Reninkuntla Rajamma v. K. Sarwanamma, (2014) 9 SCC 445, in which it was stated that “there is no provision in law that ownership in property cannot be gifted without transfer of possession of such property”, the Court stated that the deed of transfer was executed for consideration and was, in any case, conditional subject to the condition that the donee would look after the petitioner and her husband and subject to the condition that the gift would take effect after the death of the donor. Therefore, the Court held that there was no completed gift of the property and the appellant was within her right in cancelling the deed.

The appeal was allowed and judgment and order under appeal were set aside. [S. Sarojini Amma v. Velayudhan Pillai Sreekumar,2018 SCC OnLine SC 2200, decided on 26-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: While relying upon the Delhi High Court decision in Parveen Begum v. Appellate Authority, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2839, the Single Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. has held that the mere existence of disparity in the income of the donor and the recipient by itself could not be a reason to reject an organ donation application.

The Authorization Committee of a hospital had rejected the petitioner’s application for undergoing kidney transplant. The donor was claimed to be the mother of the daughter-in- law of the recipient. The committee had observed that the donor had received cash from the recipient. On appeal, the Appellate Authority noted that the observation of the committee could not be substantiated and accordingly advised it to reconsider the matter. Later, the High Court directed the Appellate Authority to decide the case instead of remitting the same, since the delay was affecting the health of the petitioner. The appellant authority, thereafter, noting the economic disparity between the donor and the recipient, and stating that there was no sufficient ground to overrule the observations of the Authorization Committee, upheld the decision of the committee.

 The Court noted that the Appellate Authority had made observations completely contrary to its observation in its previous order without providing any reasons for doing so. The Court also observed that the mere fact that the son of the recipient has stated that he would help his in-laws would not make the organ donation a commercial transaction or a transaction of the nature as is prohibited by the Act. Keeping in view the deteriorating health of the petitioner, the Authorization Committee was thus directed to forthwith grant its approval. [Sanjay Yogi Goel v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8132, decided on 1-5-2017]