Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Kerala High Court Questions DLAC’s Denial of Organ Transplant Authorization: “Cannot Find Why Versions of Parties Are Wholly Inconsistent

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that questions the procedural integrity of organ transplant authorizations, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Devan Ramachandran, set aside an order by the District Level Authorization Committee (DLAC) which had denied authorization for an organ transplant citing alleged inconsistencies in the donor’s altruism.

Justice Ramachandran, in his incisive observation, stated, “I cannot find why the ‘DLAC’ has found that versions of the ‘parties’ who appeared before them, to be ‘wholly inconsistent’.” This remark came in the context of a writ petition challenging the DLAC’s decision to deny authorization for a transplant between two individuals, alleged to lack altruistic motives.

The petitioners, represented by Adv. C.R. Suresh Kumar, contended that the DLAC’s findings in their order (Ext.P12) were egregiously improper, especially given the clear statements of affection and love from the donor towards the recipient. In contrast, the learned Government Pleader, Sri Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, defended the DLAC’s decision, highlighting the need for careful scrutiny in cases where the donor comes from a disadvantaged class.

Justice Ramachandran’s judgment scrutinized the DLAC’s interpretation of the relationship between the donor and the recipient, finding no inconsistency in their statements. The court emphasized the need for a fair and just process, especially in life-and-death situations like organ transplants. “The ‘DLAC’ appears to have taken the view being swayed by the social status of the donor, who appears to be from a disadvantaged one,” Justice Ramachandran noted, addressing concerns of potential exploitation in such delicate cases.

The High Court directed the DLAC to reconsider the matter, taking into account all relevant documents and statements, including the “Certificate of Altruism.” The judgment mandates a fresh order from the DLAC within one week of receiving a copy of the judgment, highlighting the urgent nature of the case due to the life-threatening situation of the recipient.

This ruling has shed light on the critical role of judicial oversight in administrative decisions, especially in matters as sensitive and vital as organ transplantation, where the balance between procedural rigidity and human empathy must be carefully maintained.

Date of Decision: 6 November 2023

RAMACHANDRAN P. VS STATE OF KERALA

 

Latest Legal News