Disposed

Dileep v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Mar 2021WP(C)/6762/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition regarding the transplantation of a liver from an unrelated living donor. The Court directed the Local Level Committee to forward applications to the Zonal Authorisation Committee and the latter to decide within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed. Local Level Committee directed to forward applications to Zonal Committee within three days. Zonal Committee directed to decide within one month of receipt.

Dileep Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

WP(C).No.6762 OF 2021(U)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.6762 OF 2021(U)

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 DILEEP

¶10

AGED 40 YEARS S/O. RAJU, PUTHUVAL HOUSE, AMBALAPUZHA P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 561.

¶11

2 FOUSIYA, AGED 31 YEARS W/O. MOHAMMED NAZAR, ATHIYATHIL KARATTIL HOUSE, MAVUMKUNNU, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM 676 101.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.K.V.JAYADEEP MENON SRI.T.P.RAMESH (THENGUMPILLIL) SMT.P.KRISHNAPRIYA

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶16

2 THE ZONAL AUTHORISATION COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION , REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL ZONE, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, KALAMASSERRY P.O. ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT 683 104.

¶17

3 THE LOCAL LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR RENAL TRANSPLANTATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/MEDICAL DIRECTOR, VPS LAKESHORE HOSPITAL REPRESENTED BY ITS MEDICAL DIRECTOR, XVI/612, MARADU, NETTOOR P.O. , KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 040.

¶18

4 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ST MARYS SCHOOL RD, KODATHIKAVALA, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 524.

¶19

ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS ADV. SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

¶20

WP(C).No.6762 OF 2021(U)

¶21

¶22

ADV. SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) ADV. SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY ADV. SHRI.JYOTHISH KRISHNA ADV. SHRI.AHAMMAD SACHIN K. ADV. SHRI.JAIKRISHNAN.M.PISHARODI ADV. SMT.SRUTHY J. MAMPILLY ADV. SHRI.KURIAN OOMMEN THERAKATH

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

SMT.REKHA.C.NAIR, GP

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(C).No.6762 OF 2021(U)

¶27

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Dated this the 18^th day of March 2021

¶30

The 2^nd petitioner is a patient suffering from chronic liver disease undergoing treatment in the VPS Lakeshore Hospital, Ernakulam. It is stated that she is advised to have liver transplantation immediately. In the absence of any of her relatives suitable for liver transplantation, the 1^st petitioner has come forward to donate his liver.

¶31

Petitioners submit that they have already submitted joint applications-Exts.P1 and P2 along with all documents before the 3^rd respondent; but the 3^rd respondent has not taken any action awaiting the report of the 2^nd respondent.

¶32

Sri.Benny Thomas, the learned Counsel for the 3^rd 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 2^nd respondent.

¶33

The transplantation of liver 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 2^nd respondent is the authority constituted for examining the applications for transplantation of organs in such circumstances when the donor is not related to the donee, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and Rules.

¶34

WP(C).No.6762 OF 2021(U)

¶35

¶36

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the 3^rd respondent to forward the applications as soon as it is received, to the 2^nd 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 2^nd respondent to examine the said applications along with relevant documents after obtaining a report from the 4^th 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 the application along with documents from the 3^rd respondent.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA

JUDGE

rps

WP(C).No.6762 OF 2021(U)

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY IN FORM 3 OF THE ORGANS AND TISS 10.03.2021 SUBMITT THE 3RD RESPONDENT	OF THE JOINT APPLICATION TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN UES RULES, 2014 DATED ED BY THE PETITIONERS TO .
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE PHOTOCOP APPROVAL OF TRAN DONOR UNDER FORM	Y APPLICATION FOR THE SPLANTATION FROM LIVING 11 OF THE TRANSPLANTATION
	OF HUMAN ORGANS	AND TISSUES RULES, 214
	SUMMITED BY THE RESPONDENT.	PETITIONERS TO THE 3RD
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY DATED 10.03.21 SUB TO THE 3RD RESPOND	OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT MITTED BY THE PETITIONERS ENT.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY DATED 10.03.2021 PETITIONER TO THE	OF THE CONSENT LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY DATED 10.03.2021 PETITIONER TO THE	OF THE CONSENT LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY 3RD RESPONDENT TO VERIFICATION REPRO	OF THE LETTER SEND BY THE THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR T.

Dileep v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep v. State of Kerala

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

Usha Kumari K.G. Vs District Collector, Ernakulam

Dr.Nadakkalvil Mohammed Mujeeb Rahiman Vs the District Registrar (General)

Mary Premila Gomez Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises

Xx Vs the Child Welfare Committee

Binny Xavier Vs Union of India

P.v.Anil Kumar Vs Kerala Water Authority