Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.59 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 14 in The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994
Dr.M.Anoop vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 15 September, 2009
4g. It is also submitted that in view of the fact that the Competent Authority / Authorised Committee deals with the lives of human beings, Rule 6A prescribes that an Authorisation Committee is to be formed in metros and big cities, which is hospital based and Authorisation Committee should be formed in every hospital, if the number of transplants exceeds 25 in a year at the respective transplantation centres. The delay in granting approval causes huge financial implications on the patient, as it is mandatory to undergo dialysis, which amounts to Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month besides other incidental expenses, such as boarding, lodging, travel etc In fact, the Hon'ble Union Minister of Health Mr.Gulam Nabi Azad also insisted the need for simplifying the formalities in cases of blood relatives. It is stated that this Court and other High Courts had held in respect of lacunas in the rules. This Court, in the case of Dr.M.Anoop vs. State of Tamilnadu in W.P.No.18657 of 2009 dated 15.09.2009, referred to a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Smt.Kamal Devi vs. Director of Medical Education in W.P.No.5618 of 2009 dated 30.03.2009 and found that certain lacunas exist in the rules, besides holding that the Authorisation Committee of Tamilnadu has no jurisdiction to call upon persons, who have already undergone the verification in another State and obtained NOC from that State, to go through the process again.
Miss. Sonia Ajit Vayklip And Anr vs Hospital Committee on 18 January, 2012
In fact, in a recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in Ms.Sonia Ajit Vayklip vs. Hospital Committee, Lilavati Hospitals, reported in AIR 2012 Bom 93, by clearly defining the scope of Authorisation committee, it has been held in Para 19 as follows:
Smt. Kamala Devi Jain vs Education Director Madhyamik ... on 30 July, 2010
4g. It is also submitted that in view of the fact that the Competent Authority / Authorised Committee deals with the lives of human beings, Rule 6A prescribes that an Authorisation Committee is to be formed in metros and big cities, which is hospital based and Authorisation Committee should be formed in every hospital, if the number of transplants exceeds 25 in a year at the respective transplantation centres. The delay in granting approval causes huge financial implications on the patient, as it is mandatory to undergo dialysis, which amounts to Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month besides other incidental expenses, such as boarding, lodging, travel etc In fact, the Hon'ble Union Minister of Health Mr.Gulam Nabi Azad also insisted the need for simplifying the formalities in cases of blood relatives. It is stated that this Court and other High Courts had held in respect of lacunas in the rules. This Court, in the case of Dr.M.Anoop vs. State of Tamilnadu in W.P.No.18657 of 2009 dated 15.09.2009, referred to a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Smt.Kamal Devi vs. Director of Medical Education in W.P.No.5618 of 2009 dated 30.03.2009 and found that certain lacunas exist in the rules, besides holding that the Authorisation Committee of Tamilnadu has no jurisdiction to call upon persons, who have already undergone the verification in another State and obtained NOC from that State, to go through the process again.
1