Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (2.41 seconds)
Miss. Sonia Ajit Vayklip And Anr vs Hospital Committee on 18 January, 2012 cites

Kuldeep Singh & Another vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 31 March, 2005

18. We have carefully considered the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in Kuldeep Singh case. That was a case where both the donor and the recipient hailed from the State of Punjab and they were seeking to have one kidney of petitioner No.2 therein donated to petitioner No.1 in Chennai. That case did not pertain to near relatives. In fact, the observations made in the judgment clearly indicate that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:05:32 ::: ASN 13 WPL-2831.doc Supreme Court was dealing with a case where donor and the recipient were not near relatives as defined by the Act. The Supreme Court also made it clear that the object of the statute is to prevent commercial dealings of human organs. Hence the Authorization Committee is required to satisfy itself that the real purpose of donor authorizing removal of the organ is by reason of affection or attachment towards the recipient or for any other special reason. Such special reasons can by no stretch of imagination encompass commercial elements. The Authorization Committee of the State to which the donor and recipient belong would be in a better position to ascertain the true intent and the purpose of the authorization to remove the organ and whether any commercial element is involved or not. They would be in a better position to lift the veil of projected affection or attachment and the so called special reasons and focus on the true intent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 33 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1