Disposed

Faisal Abdul Kader v. the District Level Authorization Committee

Kerala HC12 Jan 2021WP(C)/631/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP(C)631 of 2021: Writ petition seeking direction for second petitioner to submit kidney donation application concerning first petitioner. Respondents were ordered to forward submitted documents to the District Level Authorization Committee for examination within three days and take a decision within one month. The court dismissed the claim that documents were not received and ordered steps under

What did the court decide?

Direct second Respondent to forward application for consideration of first Respondent within three days. Direction given to first Respondent to examine application and take decision within one month u

Faisal Abdul Kader Vs the District Level Authorization… — 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

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.631 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 FAISAL ABDUL KADER, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KADER, VIRALIPURATH (H), MOOKUTHALA, NANNAMUKKU P.O., PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

**2 [MAHESH MADHAVAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, TSUNAMI FLAT, HOUSE NO.71, FLAT NO.9, PUKKULAM, PARAVUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.] CORRECTED

¶9

*THE WORD 'MADHAVAN' OCCURRING IN THE ADDRESS OF 2ND PETITIONER IN THE CAUSE TITLE IS CORRECTED AS 'MADHAN' AS PER THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/21 IN W.P.(C) NO.631/2021.

¶10

Sd/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 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, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶13

2 THE CONVENER, LOCAL COMMITTEE OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION, LAKESHORE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE LIMITED, MARADU, NETTUR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 040.

¶14

3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 572.

¶15

BY ADV. SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY.P.THOMAS, SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.631 OF 2021(D)

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The 1^st petitioner is a kidney patient

¶21

undergoing treatment in the VPS Lakeshore 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

¶22

the 1^st petitioner are not suitable for transplantation, the second petitioner has come

¶23

forward to donate his kidney.

¶24

2. Petitioners submitted that though they submitted Exts.P10 and P11 applications along with all documents before the 2^nd respondent, the same is not forwarded.

¶25

3. Sri. Benny P. Thomas, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent, submitted that the application along with the documents are not received from the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same would be

¶26

WP(C).No.631 OF 2021(D)

¶27

¶28

submitted today itself.

¶29

4. The transplantation of kidney from 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 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 the donee, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and Rules.

¶30

Therefore the writ petition is disposed of

¶31

with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to forward the application, which would be submitted by the petitioners along with all the documents, for consideration of 1^st respondent within a period of three days. There shall be a further direction to the first respondent to examine the said

¶32

WP(C).No.631 OF 2021(D)

¶33

¶34

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 further period of one month from the date of its receipt from the second respondent.

¶35

Sd/P.V.ASHA, JUDGE

¶36

¶37

WP(C).No.631 OF 2021(D)

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF T PETITIONER DATED 4.1.	HE AFFIDAVIT 2021.	OF THE
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE	CERTIFICATE IS	SUED BY
	SRI.P.SREERAMAKRISHNA 1.12.2020.	N, MLA	DATED
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF	THE IDENTIF	ICATION
	CERTIFICATE OF THE 21.12.2020.	PETITIONERS	DATED
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF THE DO 9.12.2020.	THE IDENTIF NOR AND HIS WIF	ICATION E DATED
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF THE DATED 9.12.2020.	THE IDENTIF DONOR AND HIS	ICATION MOTHER
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF T PETITIONERS DATED 4.1	HE AFFIDAVIT .2021.	OF THE
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE DONOR DATED 4.1.2021.	CONSENT LETTER	OF THE
EXHIBIT P8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE WIFE OF THE DONOR DAT	CONSENT LETTER ED 4.1.2021.	OF THE
EXHIBIT P9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE MOTHER OF THE DONOR D	CONSENT LETTER ATED 4.1.2021.	OF THE
EXHIBIT P10	THE TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONERS DATED	FORM II APPLICA 6.1.2021.	TION OF
EXHIBIT P11	THE TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONERS DATED	FORM 3 APPLICA 6.1.2021.	TION OF

Faisal Abdul Kader v. the District Level Authorization Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faisal Abdul Kader 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

Sujatha Kumari K.G Vs the Superintendent

Latha.K.G Vs the Managing Director

Sitco Associates Vs Kerala Academy for Skills Excellence (Kase)

Ragini Devi Amma .L Vs E.R.Radhamoni

Joshy Thomas Vs the Branch Manager

R.P.Janardanan Vs the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board