Sipu Jha
KOLKATA: Two renal-failure patients — one from Madhya Pradesh currently residing in Lake Gardens and another from Narendrapur — got a shot at recovery after the Calcutta high court last week directed the health and family welfare department’s authorisation committee to permit two unrelated donors to provide them a kidney.The March 6 order directed the committee to finalise its decisions within 24 hours and asked hospitals to take steps for the transplant within the next 24 hours. Both patients received permission from the committee on March 11.The procedure for the Madhya Pradesh woman is likely to be conducted this week, while the Narendrapur woman is expected to undergo the transplant next week.These were two separate cases filed before the bench of Justice Krishna Rao, both on a common ground — a plea seeking a written refusal from the committee.
Case details
- Narendrapur woman
- Diagnosed with kidney problems on November 4, 2021.
- Started dialysis on November 27, 2021.
- Kolkata’s Belle Vue Clinic advised her to undergo a transplant on May 30, 2025.
- She and her husband could not find a suitable kidney donor among close relatives.
- A family friend volunteered on “humanitarian grounds”.
- Madhya Pradesh woman, presently residing in Lake Gardens
- Diagnosed with a kidney problem on February 5, 2024.
- Advised to undergo renal transplantation by Kolkata’s ILS Hospital on February 5, 2024.
- She received treatment in both Madhya Pradesh and Bengal.
- After the family could not find a close relative willing to donate, a Noapara man with O-positive blood group volunteered.
- In this case, the donor was the husband’s friend and the decision to donate was purely “humanitarian”.
Arguments by petitioners
- Though the petitions were unrelated and the treatment of both patients was being carried out in different hospitals, the submissions were based on similar grounds.
- The details of both patients and donors were sent to the authorisation committee by their respective hospitals — Belle Vue Clinic and ILS Hospital.
- The authorities issued a memo for a provisional list of patients for the Organ Transplantation Board meeting, where both patients’ names appeared.
- In the Narendrapur woman’s case, the meetings were scheduled on October 14, 2025 and January 13, 2026.
- In the Madhya Pradesh woman’s case, the meeting was scheduled on September 9, 2025.
- The petitioners approached the authorities seeking reasons for the refusal of the transplant but were not given any written rejection order.
Reports submitted by authorities in both cases
The chief medical officer of health-I of North 24 Parganas requested verification by the sub-divisional officer (SDO) of Barrackpore subdivision.In both cases, the SDO categorically stated that there were no unofficial financial dealings in cash or kind between the donor and the recipient, based on affidavits affirmed before a first-class magistrate, police verification reports, and declarations by donors and legal guardians.However, despite the report, the authorities rejected both requests on the ground that during interviews of donors and legal guardians, they were asked to submit additional documents within a week to establish a “family” relationship.In both cases, the authorities grew suspicious because invoices submitted to establish the relationship from 2019 “appeared freshly prepared”.“It appears these documents may have been manipulated and fabricated for the purpose of submission only. In light of the above, the old relationship between the donor and recipient could not be established beyond reasonable doubt,” the authorities said while denying permission in both cases.What documents did the judge consider while permitting the transplant?Hospital certificate: Elaborating the patients’ condition and the urgency.Affidavits by donors: Filed before a first-class magistrate declaring that the donation was voluntary, giving the reason (humanitarian grounds), and specifying that it was without pressure or financial consideration.
Police verification report
What does the law say?Section 9(3) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 provides that if a donor authorises the removal of any human organ or tissue before death under Section 3(1) for transplantation into the body of a recipient who is not a near relative, the organ shall not be removed without prior approval of the Authorisation Committee.Rule 23 deals with the decision of the Authorisation Committee.Sub-clause (2) of Rule 23 states that the committee must expedite its decision-making process and exercise its discretion judiciously and pragmatically in cases where the patient urgently requires a transplant.
Court’s view in both cases
“This court fails to appreciate that once the donor has given an affidavit before the learned magistrate stating that he is a well-wisher of the patient and intends to donate his organ only to save the patient’s life, and the police verification also did not find any financial transaction, the authorities refused the request in a flimsy manner,” the court observed.The court also noted that Rule 23 requires the Authorisation Committee to expedite decisions in urgent cases.“In this case, this court finds that the authorities have not complied with the Rules of 1994, though the patient requires urgent renal transplantation to save her life.”
Key takeaways
When the donor submitted an affidavit, the SDO submitted a positive report, and the police verification confirmed there was no financial exchange, the authorisation committee could not have denied permission.Rule 23 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 requires the committee to expedite decisions and act pragmatically in urgent transplant cases — which it failed to do here.
Order’s impact
The Narendrapur woman will undergo renal transplantation next week.The Madhya Pradesh woman is likely to undergo transplantation this week.
हिन्दी 
English