Disposed

Tapan Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Dec 2018WP(C)/18127/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed AMRI Hospital to evaluate a non-relative kidney donor and forward the case to the State Authorization Committee, despite the hospital's registration condition limiting it to related transplants, relying on a precedent that allows such cases.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Superintendent of AMRI Hospital to evaluate the proposed non-relative donor within two weeks and forward the application to the State Level Authorization Committee immediately.

Tapan Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Medical Negligence | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

W.P. (C) No.18127 of 2018

¶2

18.12.2018 Opposite Party No.4 – Tapas Ranjan Sahu files an affidavit in Court today through Advocate Mr. B.S. Rayaguru and associates, expressing his willingness to donate kidney to the petitioner. The Vakalatnama and Affidavit filed by Opp. Party No.4 in Court today be kept on record.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State and learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.4.

¶4

The petitioner Tapan Kumar Sahoo, in this writ petition, seeks a direction to the opposite parties, particularly Opposite Party No.3, i.e. Superintendent, AMRI Hospital at Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar, to forward the application of the petitioner in the prescribed format for transplantation of kidney, to the Authorization Committee, i.e. Opposite Party No.2, under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, for consideration.

¶5

Shorn of unnecessary details, it appears from the pleadings that, the petitioner is suffering from a disease of kidney and requires urgent kidney transplantation. It further appears that, he is unable to obtain a donor, who is a direct relative, and in fact, he has obtained consent from opposite party no.4, who is a non-relative donor. The petitioner presented such non-relative donor (opp. party no.4) before the Medical Officer, AMRI Hospital at Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar, for verification and testing, but the same appears to have been rejected on the ground that the petitioner and the proposed donor are not related.

¶6

It is not in dispute that, AMRI Hospital at Khandagiri,

¶7

¶8

Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.3) has been issued with a Certificate of Registration under the Transplantation of Human Organs Rules, 1995, and although such Certificate of Registration has been issued in favour of AMRI Hospital at Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar, in Clause-1 thereof a condition has been imposed as “related transplantation only”.

¶9

Since Opposite Party No.4, i.e. the proposed donor of the petitioner is not related to the petitioner, therefore, by the terms of the Certificate of Registration granted in favour of the AMRI Hospital at Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar, they are not permitted to refer such cases of non-related donor to the State Level Authorization Committee, i.e. Opp. Party No.2.

¶10

This Court, in W.P. (C) No.13087 of 2013 (disposed of on 31.07.2013) has taken into consideration the condition in Clause No.1 in the Certificate granted under Transplantation of Human Organs Rules, 1995. Rule 4(e) of the said Rules, 1995, Rule 4(A)(4) of the said Rules and has ruled that in Clause No.1 of the Certificate of Registration granted under Transplantation of Human Organs Rules, 1995, the words “related transplantation only” stands deleted from the Certificate of Registration. Taking into consideration all the aspects, this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition and some other Writ Petitions, has allowed transplantation of kidney of non-related donor.

¶11

Taking all such facts into consideration and in view of the urgency as stated at the Bar and noted in the petition for transplantation of the kidney of the petitioner, Opposite Party No.3, i.e. Superintendent, AMRI Hospital at Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar is directed to evaluate the

¶12

¶13

donor, whom the petitioner will produce before him, within a period of two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. Upon receipt of the same, the donor’s case shall be evaluated strictly in terms of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and Transplantation of Human Organs Rules, 1995, and the application of the petitioner shall be forwarded immediately to the State Level Authorization Committee (Opposite Party No.2) for their consideration. The Authorization Committee is at liberty to consider all the aspects, as required by law, prior to granting such permission, and the petitioner’s case be expeditiously dealt with, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application from the AMRI Hospital at Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.3).

¶14

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶15

A free copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the State for necessary communication and compliance.

¶16

C.R. Dash, J.

¶17

Parida

¶18

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. By order.

¶19

Tapan Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapan Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudam Bandichhod Vs State of Orissa

Pravin Kumar@Pinku@Babu Mallick Vs State of Orissa

Diptimayee Sahoo Vs State of Orissa

Debraj Mohanty Vs the State of Odisha

Ramachandra Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Chittaranjan Pradhan Vs State of Orissa