Allowed

Shincy Mathew, v. the District Level Authorization Committee

Kerala HC25 Jan 2021WP(C)/1743/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought direction to the Local Committee to forward kidney transplantation sanction applications and documents to the District Authority without undue delay. The Court directed immediate transmission within three days and a complete decision within one month under the Transplantation Act.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Local Committee to forward all applications and documents to the District Committee within three days; directed the District Committee to decide within one month.

Shincy Mathew, Vs the District Level Authorization Committee — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1743 OF 2021(P)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SHINCY MATHEW, AGED 42 YEARS

¶8

W/O.JIBO JAMES, PATHIYIL HOUSE, BAISONVALLEY P.O., UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶9

2 SAJITHA C.S. AGED 38 YEARS W/O.SUDHEESH, MEMURIPARAMBU, EZHIKKARA, PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE FOR TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KALAMASSERY, PIN 683 104, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶13

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

¶14

3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALUVA, ALUVA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 101

¶15

ADV.SMT.PRINCY XAVIOR, GP ADV R S KALKURA -R2

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.1743 OF 2021(P)

¶18

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Dated 25^th day of January, 2021

¶21

The 1^st petitioner is a kidney patient

¶22

undergoing treatment in the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam, for both her kidneys and

¶23

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 second petitioner has come forward to donate her kidney.

¶24

Petitioners submitted that though they

¶25

submitted Exts.P9 and P10 applications along with all documents before the 2^nd respondent,

¶26

the same is not forwarded.

¶27

Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned Counsel

¶28

for the 2^nd respondent on instructions submits

¶29

that the 2^nd respondent has not received the

¶30

WP(C).No.1743 OF 2021(P)

¶31

¶32

applications along with the documents from the petitioners. It is also submitted that as soon as the petitioners submit the same, it would be forwarded to the 1^st respondent.

¶33

The transplantation of kidney from

¶34

unrelated donors is governed by Section 9(3) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 ('the Act, 1994') and Rule 7(3)of the

¶35

Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 ('the Rules 2014'). The 1^st

¶36

respondent is the authority constituted for examining the applications for transplantation of kidney in such circumstances when the donor is not related to the donee, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and Rules.

¶37

Therefore the writ petition is disposed of

¶38

with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to forward the applications Exts.P9 and P10 to the 1^st respondent along with all the documents within a period of three days from the date of

¶39

WP(C).No.1743 OF 2021(P)

¶40

¶41

its receipt from the petitioners. There shall be a further direction to the first respondent to examine the said application 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.

¶42

¶43

WP(C).No.1743 OF 2021(P)

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT	P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF EZHIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 7.1.2021
EXHIBIT	P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF BAISONVALLEY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 13.1.2021
EXHIBIT	P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HER HUSBAND DATED 16.10.2020
EXHIBIT	P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HER MOTHER DATED 1.1.2021
EXHIBIT	P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 18.1.2021
EXHIBIT	P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE DONOR DATED 18.1.2021
EXHIBIT	P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE HUSBAND OF THE DONOR DATED 18.1.2021
EXHIBIT	P8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE MOTHER OF THE DONOR DATED 18.1.2021
EXHIBIT	P9	THE TRUE COPY OF FORM II APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 20.1.2021
EXHIBIT	P10	THE TRUE COPY OF FORM 3 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 20.1.2021
RESPONDEN	TS EXIBIT	S : NIL

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

PA TO JUDGE

Shincy Mathew, v. the District Level Authorization Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shincy Mathew, 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

Soumya Vs State of Kerala

A. Radha Bai, Vs State Bank of India

Fairoose Vs the Branch Manager

Dr.Anju S.Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Afja S. H. Vs State of Kerala

Tritvam Apartment Owners Association Vs State of Kerala