MEENA DEVI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that her son namely Raghvendra Mishra aged about 35 years is suffering from CKD V and is on dialysis.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the mandate of Act of 1994 or rules made there under there is no such requirement of the consent of the husband of the petitioner for donation of kidney to his own son. A perusal of Annexure P/1 shows that the son of the petitioner is under going treatment in Bansal Hospital, Bhopal and his mother (petitioner) is the prospective donor. The prospective donor (petitioner) has been found to be medically fit for kidney donation after all medical tests. However, on account of non-signing of the consent by the husband of the petitioner, the matter has not been forwarded to the Authorization Committee and therefore, such transplantation of the kidney of the son of the petitioner could not take place. The petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kuldeep Singh and Another Vs. State of T.N. and Others, (2005) 11 SCC 122 to contend that such a matter needs to be given utmost priority and to be decided by the Authorization Committee as early as possible.

(3.) Sec. 9 of the Act of 1994 prescribes that Save as otherwise provided in sub-sec. (3), no [human organ or tissue or both] removed from the body of his donor before his death shall be transplanted into recipient unless the donor is a near relative of the recipient. Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 9 prescribes that on an application jointly made in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, by the donor and the recipient, the Authorization Committee shall, after holding an inquiry and after satisfying itself that the applicants have complied with all the requirements of the Act and the rules made there under, grant to the applicants approval for the removal and transplantation of the human organ. Sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 9, however, provides that if, after the inquiry and after giving an opportunity to the applications of being heard, the Authorization Committee finds that the approval cannot be given an appropriate order recording reasons for rejecting of such approval can be passed.