M.M.KUMAR, J. - (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 and P-8). The case of the petitioners was not considered by the Authorisation Committee. 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 : "On 29.2.2008, this Bench has passed an order and issued directions to respondent No. 2 to take up the case of the petitioners and decide the same at the earliest but not later than 5.3.2008. The aforementioned directions were necessitated as petitioner No. 1 is a kidney patient and urgently required a kidney transplantation. He has been on dialysis for quite a long time and any delay in transplantation of kidney might result into serious damage or even the loss of life. We have adjourned the case twice thereafter by hoping that the respondent would be able to reach a decision because the decision taken on 04.03.2008 was not final and it was pointed out on 10.3.2008 that certain queries and doubts raised in the meeting held on 04.03.2008 of the Authorization Committee-respondent No. 2 would be resolved by today. At the hearing today, learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record a letter dated 13.3.2008 addressed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, UT Chandigarh to the Deputy Commissioner, UT Chandigarh stating that the prisoner is a former Tibetan political prisoner and due to torture endured by him in the prison, both of his kidneys are not functioning. All the medical expenses incurred would be borne by the Department of Health, Central Tibetan Administration of his holiness, the Dalai Lama, Dharamsala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. All his relatives are in Tibet and it is not possible for them to come to Chandigarh to save his life by donating kidney, who is under the treatment of PGI. He is staying at House No. 3500, Sector 15-D since December, 2007 and is bedridden. It has also been pointed out that his friend-petitioner No. 2, who is donor is about 30 years and is childhood friend of the patient-petitioner No. 1. It has been disclosed that the donor has voluntarily decided on humanitarian basis to donate his kidney without any financial transaction. It has further been pointed out that being a schoolmate and freedom fighter, the donor is voluntarily donating his kidney. In view of the fact, we find that atleast on humanitarian basis, the Authorization Committee shall grant permission to the donor to donate his kidney to the patient-petitioner No. 1. Let the decision be now taken within one week. List for consideration on 28.3.2008. A copy of the order be given to the counsel for the respondents under the signatures of the Court Secretary."
(3.) AT the time of hearing, a photocopy of the minutes of the meeting of Authorisation Committee-respondent No. 2 has been placed on record, which shows that the Authorisation Committee has now complied with our direction issued on 14.3.2008, requiring them to grant permission to the donor- petitioner No. 2 to donate his kidney to the patient-petitioner No. 1. A photocopy of the minutes of the meeting, dated 19.3.2008, is taken on record as Mark-'A'.;