Disposed

Anas A.P. v. the District Level Authorization Committee

Kerala HC6 Jan 2021WP(C)/2/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition regarding a kidney transplant authorization. The petitioner, requiring a donation from an unrelated donor, complained that the Local Committee (2nd respondent) had not forwarded applications to the District Level Committee. The court directed the 2nd respondent to forward the documents expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

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

Anas A.P. Vs the District Level Authorization Committee — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C).No.2 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.2 OF 2021(A)

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 ANAS A.P. AGED 31 YEARS S/O BAPPUTTY,ATHAKKINTE PURAKKAL HOUSE, ALUNGAL BEACH,CHETTIPPADY,PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2 KUNJUMON,

¶11

AGED 52 YEARS

¶12

S/O.THOMAS,NEDUMBATTATHALIL KOYIPPALLY HOUSE,CHIRAKKADAVU, PONKUNNAM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

1 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE FOR TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS,ERNAKULAM,ERNAKULAM,ERNAKULAM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KALAMASSERY,PIN-693104,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶16

2 THE CONVENER,

¶17

LOCAL COMMITTEE OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION,MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL LTD,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-681016.

¶18

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY,PONKUNNAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686560.

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SMT.VINITHA.B, GP

¶21

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

¶22

WP(C).No.2 OF 2021(A)

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Dated this the 6^th day of January 2021

¶26

The 1^st petitioner is a kidney patient undergoing treatment in the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam, for both his kidneys and he 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 his kidney.

¶27

Petitioners submitted that though they submitted

¶28

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

¶29

The learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

WP(C).No.2 OF 2021(A)

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, with a 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.2 OF 2021(A)

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KANJIRAPPALY MLA DATED 20.9.2020.

¶45

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF PARAPPANANGADI MUNICIPALITY DATED 30.6.2020.

¶46

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HIS WIFE DATED 15.6.2020. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HIS SON DATED 15.06.2020. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 13.7.2020. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE WIFE OF DONOR DATED 13/7/2020 EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE SON OF DONOR DATED 13.7.2020 EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF FORM II APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 05.10.2020 EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF FORM 3 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 28.9.2020.

Anas A.P. v. the District Level Authorization Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anas A.P. 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