Wife waiting for 8 months to donate kidney to spouse

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 17

Karamjit Kaur has been waiting for almost eight months to donate kidney to her husband out of “pure love and affection”.

But the wait is still not over. The road to her husband’s recovery hit a stumbling block after suspicion arose in the authorisation committee’s mind as her marriage was solemnised after the would-be groom’s mother was found incompetent to donate her kidney. Besides, the marriage was performed without the approval of the bride’s parents.

But her uncertainties may come to an end in less than 10 days with Justice Lisa Gill of the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing the competent authority to conclusively decide her application after taking into considerations the emergent facts. Among other things, Barnala Senior Superintendent of Police Harjeet Singh had stated in his report there was no indication of greed.

Referring to the report, Deputy Advocate-General Ramdeep Pratap Singh told the Bench that the petitioner-wife and her husband Lovepreet Singh were stated to be living together at a village in Dhanaula in Barnala district. Joint statements of the respectable of the village were also recorded.

The Bench was also told that kidney transplant was recommended on November 1, 2018, and the marriage was solemnised on April 29, 2019, after Lovepreet Singh’s mother was found to be an incompetent donor.

Justice Gill asserted matters like the present were of emergent nature and should be dealt with pragmatically and expeditiously in accordance with the provisions of the statute to maintain the delicate balance between saving lives and preventing exploitation or commercialisation. It was vital for the competent authority or the authorisation committee to conclude its decision expeditiously once a matter was presented before it for the donation of an organ or tissue.

Justice Gill added statutory provisions had been promulgated to prevent trafficking and commercial practices. Every care was required to be taken to prevent exploitation of any kind.

In the present case, there was no indication of a malpractice, greed or pressure on the petitioner at the current stage.

Justice Gill asserted: “Merely because the parents or sibling of the petitioner have not come forward to give consent for transplant of the organ, it is not a ground to reject the donation in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.”

Justice Gill observed medical fitness certificate of the living donor had been issued, the petitioner and the recipient being spouse were included in the definition “near relative” and the petitioner’s identity and consent had been verified. In case of emergence of any malpractice, element of greed or monetary benefit, it was imperative to deal with the same swiftly and stringently without exception.