Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: P. Patnaik J., allowed the petition directing that any certification that limits donation of organ from near relatives only is opposed to law and such an application must go to Authorization Committee to decide whether the donor and donee have no commercial interest in it.

The facts of the case are such that the petitioner has undergone various check-up under opposite party 3- Hospital. The opposite party 4 has given consent to be a volunteer donor to donate his Kidney to the petitioner for his survival even though he is not related to the petitioner. However, opposite party 3 refused to recommend the case of the petitioner on the ground that in view of the restriction made under the Certificate of Registration granted to it under the Transplantation of Human Organ Rules,1995 they are only authorized to recommend cases of related transplantation only. Being aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed to direct the opposite parties to undertake the process of kidney transplantation so as to save his life.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court in Janardana Patra v. State, 2013 SCC OnLine Ori 183, held that the words “Related transplantation only” stand deleted from the Certificate of Registration and W.P.(C) No.27215 of 2020 further directed the Hospital Authority to forward the application of the petitioner therein to the Authorization Committee for their consideration and the donors case may be evaluated strictly in terms of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and the Transplantation of Human Organs Rules, 1995.

The Court relied on the judgment held in  Janardana Patra v. State, 2013 SCC OnLine Ori 183 delivered by Orissa High Court and held that opposite party must forward the application of the petitioner to the Authorization Committee-opposite party recommending petitioner’s case as an unrelated donor.

In view of the above, the petition was disposed off.[Pitambar Swain v. State of Odisha, 2020 SCC OnLine Ori 793, decided on 04-11-2020]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

High Courts

Karnataka High Court: Dismissing the petition filed by “Fortis Hospitals Ltd.”, a global brand in health care services, who was aggrieved by the decision of authorities concerned that petitioner conducted a transplantation of pancreas without  certificate of registration for transplantation of pancreas which is violative of the provisions of the Transplantation of human organs and tissue Act, 1994, the Court affirmed the aforesaid order and observed that there is a dispute whether the hospital has applied for registration for transplantation of pancreas and held that certificate of registration is issued in favour of petitioner and was granted permission for performing organ transplantation of (1); kidney (2) liver (3) homograft only, not pancreas. The Court held that by mere grant of registration for transplantation of liver which is one of the abdominal organs, it cannot be presumed that permission for transplantation of other abdominal organs is also given such as pancreas. The Court further emphasised that as per the definition of the ‘human organ’ contained in Section 2(h) of aforesaid Act, it only refers to a particular organ and do not conceive of  grant of registration certificate in respect of all abdominal organs without specifying organs.

In the instant case where  respondent’s wife was suffering from severe diabetes and renal failure and needed a kidney and pancreas transplantation, during the transplantation, respondent’s wife died due to abnormal bleeding and sepsis, the counsel for the petitioner contended that as per Rule 9C(B) of Transplantation of human organs Rules 1995, transplantation of liver and other abdominal organs categorized as one category as experts required for the transplantation of liver are  same in the transplantation of abdominal organs.

The Court also held that it is necessary to separately specify the name of the organs because nature of the organs, infrastructural requirement for transplanting such organs, are matters of consideration while inspecting hospitals and facilities made available by them. Fortis Hospital Ltd., v. The Principal Secretary, 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 6040, decided on 25.11.2014