Intent Behind Organ Donation Cannot Be Doubted Merely Due To Donor's Poor Financial Background, Affects Individual Dignity: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently berated the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.SP), Thrissur Rural, for refusing to issue a Letter of Altruism to a maid to enable her to donate her organ to her previous employer who is suffering from renal failure. Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the said authority had refused to grant the Letter, on acting upon certain surmises and conjectures...
The Kerala High Court recently berated the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.SP), Thrissur Rural, for refusing to issue a Letter of Altruism to a maid to enable her to donate her organ to her previous employer who is suffering from renal failure.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the said authority had refused to grant the Letter, on acting upon certain surmises and conjectures entered into by the Station House Officer of the Valapad Police Station (SHO) who doubted the intention behind the transplant on account of the poor financial background of the petitioner.
The SHO had said that since the 1st petitioner's family "is having poor financial income and they even don't have their own house”, “the organ transplantation is not on the basis of fair interest”.
Taking note of the decision in Soubiya v. District Level Authorisation Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs, Ernakulam (2023), wherein it had been laid down that a presumption, that a person in financial requirement would only act for monetary gain, is an affront to the dignity of an individual and against the constitutional imperatives, the Court thus said:
"This Court can never grant approval to such a sweeping statement (of the SHO); and, if police officers are allowed to make such conjectures, it would certainly hit at the bedrock of the constitutional imperatives of dignity and individual respect".
It was submitted that the 2nd petitioner was suffering from advanced renal failure and is in emergent need of an organ transplant, for which the 1st petitioner had indicated her willingness to donate her organs. However, the Dy.SP refused to issue to them a Letter of Altruism which is a statutory requirement, due to which the petitioners were unable to submit the relevant documents before the Local Level Authorization Committee for Renal Transplantation (LLAC), and the same could also not be forwarded thereafter to the District Level Authorization Committee for Renal Transplantation (DLAC).
Government Pleader Sunil Kumar Kuriakose submitted that the main reason for the Dy.SP in rejecting the Letter of Altruism was that although the 1st petitioner stated that she had been working for the 2nd petitioner and his family as their maid, there were no phone calls between them for nearly a year, as revealed by the Call Data Records (CDR). He added that since the petitioner had poor financial income and did not even own their house, the SHO had concluded that the offer for transplantation made by her was not on the basis of fair interest.
The petitioner however averred that she willingly agreed to donate her organs since she and her husband had developed attachment to the 2nd petitioner and his family on account of their long association, and that the same was not being resorted to for any financial gain. She added that it was her husband who had wanted to donate, but that he was unable to do so following his incapacitation due to a fall.
Finding that the 'sweeping statement' made by the SHO could not be approved by the Court since it hits the 'bedrock of the constitutional imperatives of dignity and individual respect', the Court proceeded to add that even the assertion that the connection between the petitioners could not be established due to absence of phone calls was also 'immature'.
"...it is not necessary that the petitioners – when the 1st among them was working with the 2nd, in his house – should have called each other on their phones. One fails to fathom what the 4th respondent meant by this, or the rationale in making such a statement," the Court said.
It further noted that the DLAC had deferred the matter on an entirely different account - that of suspicion of valid marriage of the 1st petitioner and her husband.
"Again, this Court fails to understand the legal impact of such a suspicion – even assuming it to be true, for the sake of argument – because, when the 1st petitioner has come forward to donate her organ, the factum of her marriage being legally registered or otherwise, would be wholly immaterial and irrelevant. It is now well settled that, even a customary marriage has valid and legal status, which cannot be discounted by any of the Authorities, particularly the 2nd respondent," the Court added.
The Court was thus of the considered view that it would have to grant relief to the petitioners since the alleged suspicious grounds raised by the authorities had now become tenuous.
The DLAC was thereby directed to complete proceedings on the documents produced by the petitioners and to issue a final order in the matter adverting to the observations made by the Court, without insisting on any Letter of Altruism to be produced by them. It also granted liberty to the petitioners to continue with the treatment of the 2nd petitioner, by way of organ transplant by the 1st petitioner on the issuance of such orders by the DLAC.
The plea was thus allowed.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates K. Ramakumar and John Varghese
Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader Sunil Kumar Kuriakose
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 761
Case Title: Deepa P.M. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 38624 OF 2023