Violation of organ transplantation norms in Kerala: Criminal proceedings against hospital, 8 doctors
Kochi (PTI): A Kerala court has decided to initiate criminal proceedings against a prominent private hospital here and eight doctors for the offence of unauthorised removal of organs of an accident victim back in 2009.
The decision by Judicial First Class Magistrate Eldos Mathew came on a doctor's complaint alleging denial of proper treatment to the accident victim, declaring him brain dead without following due procedure and transplanting his organs into a foreign national in violation of the law regulating the same.
The court said it was of the view that "there is a prima facie case and sufficient grounds for proceeding in respect of offences under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, against all the accused".
"The complainant has complied with all the requirements of the Act. Hence, the case is taken on file. Accordingly, it is directed that summons shall be issued to all the accused," the court said in its order of May 29.
The accused include the private hospital where the victim died, the neurosurgeons who examined him at the two hospitals he was taken to after the accident and the doctors of the transplantation team.
The magistrate said that after going through various court rulings, relevant statutes and considering the materials before him, it has emerged that evacuation of blood from the victim's cranial cavity after the accident could have saved his life.
"But there was no effort to drain out the blood, though the victim was examined by neurosurgeons at the two hospitals where he was treated," the court said.
The victim immediately after the accident was admitted in the Mar Baselious Hospital at Kothamangalam near here and then later shifted to the Lakeshore Hospital in Ernakulam.
The court also noted that even before planning to conduct neurosurgery or blood evacuation, HIV tests were conducted by Lakeshore hospital.
"Even prior to the declaration of brain death, doctors of the transplantation team visited the patient and a liver function test was conducted," the court further noted.
It also said the death certificate was not as per the prescribed norms and some of the doctors who signed it were not authorised to do so under relevant laws.
The court also noted that even the Apnoea test, a mandatory examination for determining brain death, was not conducted.
It also said the liver of the victim was transplanted into a foreign national without sanction of the internal authorisation committee and in the Malaysian Embassy certificate, wife of the recipient is shown as donor which was "suspicious".
All these grounds were also cited by the complainant, Dr S Ganapathy, who had claimed that the victim's relatives were made to believe he was brain dead and thus induced to donate his vital organs.
The victim, Abin V J, had met with an accident on November 29, 2009 when his motorcycle rammed an electric post and he sustained head injuries.
By December 1, 2009, he was declared brain dead, his vital organs were harvested and the liver transplanted into a foreign national, according to the complaint.
The complainant doctor, who resides in Kollam district of Kerala, came to know about the accident and what transpired thereafter from newspaper reports and on enquiry found that the organ transplantation was carried out allegedly in violation of then existing laws and by obtaining consent of the parents purportedly by misrepresentation.
Speaking to a TV channel after the court's order, Dr Ganapathy said there were several attempts to sabotage the case by changing the officers looking into it and a report was also released, purportedly by the district-level enquiry committee of the DMO, stating there was nothing wrong done by the hospitals or the doctors concerned.
"When one of the doctors who had signed the report claimed she never attended the meeting and her signature was forged, I knew something was wrong and I started to hunt for the medical records of the case," he said.
He alleged that right from the time the victim was referred from Mar Baselios to Lakeshore, the preparations had begun to harvest his organs without even considering saving his life.
"All that cannot happen without the knowledge and approval of the hospitals' management," he claimed.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Ordinance issued to increase number of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 38
New Delhi (PTI): The government has promulgated an ordinance to increase the strength of the Supreme Court from the present 34 judges to 38, including the Chief Justice of India.
The law ministry notified the ordinance on Saturday, which amended the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, to increase the sanctioned strength of the top court.
So far, the sanctioned strength of the top court was 34, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Now, the number of judges has been increased by four, taking the sanctioned strength to 38.
The top court will now have 37 judges, other than the CJI.
With the apex court having two vacancies at present, and the ordinance coming into force immediately, the Supreme Court Collegium will now have to recommend six names for appointment as judges in the top court.
A bill will be brought in the Monsoon Session of Parliament to convert the ordinance – an executive order – into a law passed by Parliament.
The Union Cabinet had cleared a draft bill on May 5 to increase the number of apex court judges.
The strength of the Supreme Court was last increased from 30 to 33 (excluding the CJI) in 2019.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, as originally enacted in 1956, put the maximum number of judges (excluding the CJI) at 10.
This number was increased to 13 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges), Amendment Act, 1960, and to 17 by another amendment to the law.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986, augmented the strength of judges from 17 to 25, excluding the CJI.
A fresh amendment in 2009 further increased the strength from 25 to 30.
Article 124(3) of the Constitution lists the qualifications required to become a Supreme Court judge.
An Indian citizen who has either served as a high court judge for at least five years, or as an advocate for 10 years, or is a distinguished jurist, can be appointed to the top court.
The strength of the Supreme Court is increased based on the recommendations of the CJI, who writes to the Union law minister. After consulting the finance ministry, the Department of Justice under the law ministry moves the Cabinet with a draft bill.
