Disposed

Shallet Saiza v. the District Level Authorization Committee

Kerala HC6 Jan 2021WP(C)/10/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition concerning an unrelated kidney donation. The petitioner, a kidney patient, sought direction to the local committee to forward her application for authorization to the district committee. The Court directed the local committee to forward the application within three days and the district committee to take a decision expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to forward applications to the 1st respondent within three days and the 1st respondent to take a decision within one month.

Shallet Saiza Vs the District Level Authorization Committee — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C).No.10 OF 2021(A)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.10 OF 2021(A)

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 SHALLET SAIZA AGED 55 YEARS W/O. JOSEPH SAIZA, SAIZA VILLA, MOOLAMKUZHI, MUNDAMVELI P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶10

2 SOBHA K, AGED 43 YEARS W/O. AJI, R.A NIVAS, PERUMBAZHUTHOOR P.O, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE FORT TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KALAMASSERY, PIN 683104, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶14

2 THE CONVENER, LOCAL COMMITTEE OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION, MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL LTD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 016

¶15

3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA, NEYYATTINKARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695 121

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SMT.VINITHA.B,, GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.10 OF 2021(A)

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 6^th day of January 2021

¶23

The 1^st petitioner is a kidney patient undergoing treatment

¶24

in the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam, for both her kidneys and she is advised to have transplantation of kidney. It is stated that since the kidneys of the close relatives of the 1^st petitioner are not suitable for transplantation, the 2^nd petitioner has come forward to donate her kidney.

¶25

Petitioners submitted that though they submitted

¶26

Exts.P8 and P9 applications along with all documents before the 2^nd respondent, the same is not forwarded.

¶27

The learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that petitioners are yet to submit application and as and when application along with all the documents are produced they will forward the same to the 1^st respondent.

¶28

The transplantation of kidney from unrelated donors are governed by Section 9(3) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 ('the Act, 1994') and Rule 7(3) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 ('the Rules 2014'). The 1^st respondent is the authority constituted for examining the applications for transplantation of kidney in such circumstances when the donor is not related to

¶29

¶30

WP(C).No.10 OF 2021(A)

¶31

the donee, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and Rules.

¶32

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, with a

¶33

direction to the 2^nd respondent to forward the applications Exts.P8 and P9, as soon as it is received, to the 1^st respondent along with all the documents within a period of three days from the date of its receipt. There shall be a further direction to the 1^st respondent to examine the said applications along with relevant documents after obtaining a report from the 3^rd respondent and to take a decision on it in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 9(3) of the Act, 1994 and Rule 7(3) of the Rules, 2014, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA

JUDGE

rkc

WP(C).No.10 OF 2021(A)

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY K J MAXY, MLA DATED 18-09-2020 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY DATED 11-09-2020 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HER HUSBAND DATED 9-9-2020 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDEINTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HER DAUGHTER DATED 9-09-2020 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 9-11-2020 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE HUSBAND OF THE DONOR DATED 9-11-2020 EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE DONOR DATED 9-11-2020 EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF FORM II APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 14.12.2020 EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF FORM 3 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 14.12.2020

Shallet Saiza v. the District Level Authorization Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shallet Saiza v. the District Level Authorization Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kala S. Vs State of Kerala

K.J.Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Sulaiman.a Vs Raghuram

Pavan Rose Johnson, Vs the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations

T.K.Zachariah Vs the State of Kerala

Vijayakumaran Nair Vs the Chairman