PAWAN ANAND Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are few decisions which challenge the intrinsic attributes of a human being, which is, to tilt in favour of life and equity, as and when equity coalesces with law. At times, similar challenges are faced by Judges. This is one such case. Much of the initial dilemma faced by me was resolved on coming across the reply that Justice Holmes gave to his friend Judge learned Hand who while parting his company, exhorted him: "Do justice, Sir, do justice". Justice Holmes in his inimitable style turned back and replied: "that is not my job. It is my job to apply the law". The takeaway for me is: for a Judge it is always about justice according to law.

(2.) WITH this preface, let me first pen down, the facts obtaining in the present case. By and large, the facts are not in dispute.

(3.) IN addition to the above, reliance was also placed on the affidavit of the donor wherein, she has deposed to the effect that, she has known the recipient family since 1983, as she resided in the recipient house situate at E-319, Kamla Nagar, Agra, U.P. The donor in the said affidavit has gone on to State that she stayed in the recipient's house till 2002. It is averred by the donor that on account of this long association and the affection which the recipient showed to the donor and her children, the donor and the recipient developed a mother and daughter relationship. The donor further avers that on becoming aware of the ailment suffered by the recipient, she voluntarily offered to donate a part of her liver which, as it turned out had the same blood group, as that of the recipient. The donor has denied exertion of any coercion or undue influence on her or that her offer to donate a part of her liver is motivated by commerce.