VEN JAMPEL GYASTSO AND ANOTHER Vs. POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, CHANDIGARH (P G I ) AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition discloses the sad fate of kidney patients who have a genuine donor available to donate one of his kidney. Petitioner No. 1 is the kidney patient. He is stated to be a former Tibetan political prisoner, who was imprisoned for two years in Chinese prison in Tibet. He escaped to India in the year 2004 after his release. It is alleged that on account of torture in the Chinese prison, both of his kidneys were damaged, which have not been functioning. He is on dialysis and needs regular treatment. Initially he started taking treatment from Tibetan Delek Hospital but since there was lack of facility for kidney transplant, he came to Chandigarh for the treatment at PGI. He has been awaiting the nod from the respondents since October 2007 and continues to be on dialysis. It has been claimed by the patient petitioner that petitioner No. 2 is his school days friend and out of love and affection for him, he has volunteered to donate his kidney. It has been claimed that there is no money consideration in donation of kidney. The expenses of the treatment of kidney transplantation in the present case are to be borne by the Department of Health, Central Tibetan Administration of His Holiness, The Dalai Lama, Gangchen Kyishong and to that effect letters dated 7.11.2007 (P-1 & P-2) have already been issued. Even a letter has been issued by the Tibetan Delek Hospital, on 12.11.2007 to the effect that the kidney was being donated on humanitarian ground (P-4).

(2.) The PGI had already carried out all the necessary tests on both the petitioners to ascertain as to whether the kidney of the donor-petitioner No. 2 could be transplanted in the patient petitioner No. 1. The case of the petitioners for kidney transplantation was also recommended by Dr. Arjinder Singh Bains, MS PGI, Chief Transplant Surgeon to the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Chairman, Human Organ Transplantation Authorization Committee, Shimla (P-5). Even the Global Human Rights Council, vide its letter dated 20.11.2007 has requested the respondent PGI to constitute a board of doctors for kidney transplantation (P-6). Even the photocopies of the medical history of both the petitioners have been placed on record (P-7 & P-8). The case of the petitioners was not considered by the Authorisation Committee.

(3.) When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 25.2.2008 we issued notice of motion for 28.2.2008 by keeping in view the urgency of treatment which was required to be given to the patient petitioner. On 29.2.2008, we issued direction to the Authorisation Committee of the PGI to take up the case of the petitioner and decide the same at the earliest but not later than 5.3.2008. The Bench Secretary was directed to hand over copy of the order to the Standing Counsel of the PGI that day itself. Thereafter the file was shown to us with the minutes of the meeting dated 4.3.2008, wherein certain queries had been raised and the issues were likely to be resolved. However, from the minutes of the meeting held on 4.3.2008, we found that the matter was not decided with the speed it deserved. Accordingly, we passed a detailed order on 14.3.2008, which reads as under :