Kolkata, Oct 06: The Calcutta High Court on Monday set aside a kidney transplant permission refusal by the designated authorisation committee to a chronic renal ailment patient, directing it to reconsider the request of the petitioner.
The court observed that unless there is definite material to establish financial dealings involving the parties, permission ought not to be withheld or rejected.
“If the donor states that out of love and affection, he/she is making the donation, in the absence of any credible reason, the averment should not be doubted,” the court observed in its judgment.
Justice Krishna Rao directed the state-level authorisation committee for organ donation and transplant to reconsider the petitioner patient’s request and to take appropriate decision within two weeks, setting aside its refusal to allow the kidney donation by the wife of his driver.
The court said the reasons the authorisation committee refused to recommend the petitioner’s case for kidney transplantation were not in accordance with the statute, despite the fact that no commercial transaction was involved and the donor was willing to donate the organ out of love and affection, knowing the recipient for the last three to four years.
The authorisation committee did not recommend the case of the petitioner with the reasons that the husband of the donor has not produced documents that he was working as a driver at a driver centre and has obtained driving licence only in the year 2024.
Holding that the rules provide for scrutiny of application, the court said that if there is doubt, the applicants can be asked for an explanation, and verification can also be done through government officials.
Observing that too much burden cannot be laid on the shoulders of the applicants unless there is definite material to establish that there are financial dealings involving the parties, Justice Rao observed, “Permission ought not to be withheld or rejected”.
The court noted that in the present case, before making a decision, the authorisation committee examined the donor, the husband of the donor and the petitioner patient.
Pointing out that the committee also called for a report from the police authorities to ascertain whether any commercial transaction or middlemen/touts were involved, the court noted that the police report certified that there was no commercial transaction or middlemen involved.
The court noted from the statements of the donor, the donor’s husband, and the recipient that they have known each other for the last three or four years. Furthermore, the donor’s husband used to drive the recipient to the hospital, and the donor treated the recipient as her uncle.
The court stated that if the donor is not a near relative, the requirement is that they must establish that the organ removal was authorised for transplantation into the recipient’s body due to attachment or some special reason for donating the organ.
Justice Rao observed that the purpose of enacting the statute shows that there cannot be any commercial element involved in organ donation.
