RAMACHANDRAN P Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners challenge Ext.P12 order issued by the 3rd respondent - District Level Authorization Committee ('DLAC' for short), in which, they have opined that 2nd petitioner - who is the donor of the organ, is not offering it to the 1st petitioner for altruism.

(2.) The petitioners say that the afore findings in Ext.P12 are egregiously improper particularly, when the husband of the donor and her brother have made it unequivocally clear before the 'DLAC' that she is acting solely on account of affection and love for the 1st petitioner, and not for any other confutative reason. They, therefore, pray that Ext.P12 be set aside and the 'DLAC' be directed to issue appropriate authorization, so that transplantation can be done in favour of the 1st petitioner, without any avoidable delay because, otherwise, his life will be in peril.

(3.) In response to the afore submissions of Sri.Suresh Kumar C.R. - learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader - Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, took me through Ext.P12 to show that, there are inconsistencies in the statements given by the donor and her supposed husband and brother; and therefore, that 'DLAC' could not take a proper decision in her favour. He argued that when the donor is a person from a disadvantaged class of society, more care has to be taken by the 'DLAC', to ensure that she is not being exploited; and that this is all that has been done through Ext.P12. He pointed out that, in fact, the 'DLAC' had rejected the plea of the petitioners earlier; and that when Ext.P12 was issued, there was no change in the circumstances noticed. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.