SUDHA MATHESAN Vs. AUTHORISATION COMMITTEE (TRANSPLANTATION)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions are disposed of by a common order since the issues raised therein are identical.

(2.) The first petitioners in these writ petitions were admitted for renal failure in the second respondent hospital. They are undergoing regular dialysis. Kidney transplantation is the only solution. The second petitioners have come forward to donate their kidneys in favour of the corresponding first petitioners. But the donors who have given consent for transplantation are not "near relatives." Hence, prior approval from the Authorisation Committee (first respondent) is statutorily required in each case. The hospital is hesitant to forward the papers to the Authorisation Committee for taking appropriate decision. In these circumstances, the present writ petitions came to be filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions and called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for. My attention was drawn to the order dtd. 17/4/2024 made in W.P.No.9306 of 2024. A learned Judge of this Court had directed the hospital concerned to forward the papers / medical summary along with application submitted by the patient to the Authorisation Committee immediately. There was also direction for taking decision within a time frame.