The Legal Affair

Let's talk Law

Kerala High Court Summons Lakeshore

Hospital and Doctors over Unlawful Organ
Transplantation
Share this:

 15/06/2023, 19 HOURS AGO

Kerala High Court Summons Lakeshore Hospital and Doctors over Unlawful Organ
Transplantation
Factual Background
In the case of Dr S Ganapathy v Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre Pvt Ltd After being
involved in a motorbike accident, the victim in this case was taken to the Mar Baselious Hospital
in Kothamangalam. He was later transferred to the Lakeshore Hospital, where doctors declared
him brain dead. After that, his liver and kidneys were removed. The Kollam-based doctor who
brought attention to the problem by filing the complaint did so after reading about it in the
newspaper. Further investigation revealed that the organ transplant was carried out in a flagrant
violation of the law and with the parents’ misinformed consent.

Argument Advance
The victim was allegedly refused appropriate care at both hospitals and against the law, his
organs were transplanted into a foreign national. According to the report, no apnoea test was
performed to assess whether the person was brain dead, and no blood was expelled from the
cranium. According to the complainant, this might have saved a life. Furthermore, it was argued
that the declaration of brain death was not made in accordance with the prescribed protocol.

Analysis of Court Decision

In response to a complaint alleging illegal organ transplantation, a Kerala court has issued
summonses to the Lakeshore Hospital in Kochi and eight doctors. Judicial I Class Magistrate
Eldos Mathew issued the order after concluding that a prima facie case had been established
against the defendants under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, where it was
determined that the order of issuing the process is not merely a formality, was cited by the Court.
The court further decided that the Magistrate must exercise his judgement in determining
whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding in the case or not. The order must explicitly
describe how such an opinion was formed. If no justification is provided for the decision to find
a prima facie case against the accused, the ruling may be overturned. Without a doubt, the order
need not include specific justifications.
The Court considered the complainant’s different arguments in light of this background. It was
thought that the victim’s life might have been saved if the evacuation protocol had been
followed, however, neither hospital made any attempt to carry it out. The Court also pointed out
that the transplantation team had already seen the patient and a liver function test had been
completed before brain death was officially declared. The Transplantation of Human Organs Act,
1994 (pre-amended)’s sections 18, 20, and 21 were complied with by the complainant, therefore
summonses were issued to each and every accused in light of this.