Dismissed

Sujeet Mahapatra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Nov 2019WP(C)/21389/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Medical Superintendent of Kalinga Hospital to evaluate a non-relative kidney donor and forward the application to the State Level Authorization Committee under the THOTA and THOR, overriding restrictive registration clauses based on earlier judicial relief.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Medical Superintendent to evaluate the donor within two weeks and forward the application to the Authorization Committee within four weeks for consideration.

Sujeet Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha — Medical Negligence | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P. (C) No.21389 of 2019

¶2

08.11.2019 Opposite Party No.5 – Bharati Mishra (the donor) files an affidavit in Court today through Advocate Mr. Ramesh Chandra Pradhan, expressing her willingness to donate kidney to the petitioner. The Vakalatnama and Affidavit filed 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.5.

¶4

The petitioner Sujeet Mahapatra, in this writ petition, seeks a direction to the opposite parties, particularly Opposite Party No.4, i.e. Medical Superintendent, Kalinga Hospital at Chandrasekharpur, 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.5, who is a non-relative donor. The petitioner presented such non-relative donor (opp. party no.5) before the Medical Officer, Kalinga Hospital at Chandrasekharpur, 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

¶7

It is not in dispute that, Kalinga Hospital at Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar 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 Kalinga Hospital at Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, in Clause-1 thereof a condition has been imposed as “related transplantation only”.

¶8

Since Opposite Party No.5, 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 Kalinga Hospital at Chandrasekharpur, 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.4, i.e.

¶11

¶12

Medical Superintendent, Kalinga Hospital at Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar is directed to evaluate the 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 Kalinga Hospital at Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.3).

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

………………… C.R. Dash, J.

¶17

Subha

¶18

Sujeet Mahapatra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujeet Mahapatra 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

Kshirod Pradhan Vs Tahasildar,Attabira

Naresh Mandal Vs Union of India,New Delhi

Bhanumati Devi Alias Patra Vs State of Odisha

Narendra Senapati Vs B.D.A.

Janaki Kanta Mohapatra Vs Govt.of India

Shyamsundar Rana Vs SBI and Ors.