Absence Of Photographs Featuring Donor & Recipient Not Valid Ground To Reject Donor’s Claim Of Voluntary Organ Donation: Kerala HC

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition after the District Level Organ Transplantation Authorisation Committee under the  Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 2012 rejected the application, suspecting commercial dealing behind the human organ donation and the Appellate Authority upheld the rejection.

The bench of Justice VG Arun observed, “Absence of photographs featuring the donor and recipient cannot also be the reason for negativing the donor's version that he had volunteered to donate his organ out of love and affection.”

Advocate CA Chacko appeared for the Appellant and Senior GP Deepa Narayanan appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The Petitioner, a chronic kidney patient in need of a life-saving renal transplant, received a voluntary organ donation offer from the second Petitioner. As they are not near relatives, they submitted a joint application under Section 9(5) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 2012. However, the District Level Organ Transplantation Authorisation Committee rejected the application on the grounds of suspicion of commercial involvement, a decision later upheld by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the Writ Petition.

The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) where according to the Court it was observed, “The burden of satisfying the Authorisation Committee that no element of commercialisation is involved and the altruistic donation is prompted by the donor’s affection or attachment towards the recipient or for some other special reason is upon the applicants. Therefore, it is for the applicants to produce proof of the various factors mentioned in Rule 7(3), which are meant to aid the authorisation committee in reaching the right conclusion.”

The Court observed, “…in Kerala, all applications for approval under Section 9(5) are being considered by the District Level Authorisation Committee (DLAC), since Hospital Based Committees, as mandated by Rule 11(4), are yet to be notified.”

The Court suggested the State Government constitute Hospital Based Committees and ensure induction of the experienced and knowledgeable persons in different fields in the Authorisation Committees in accordance with Rules 12 and 13.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned orders.