We aim to work with a positive perspective on a larger scale
Our continuous struggle for enactment and implementation of correctives measures in form of laws to change complete picture of eye donation in India.
HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANT ACT (HOTA), 1995 was insufficient to address issues related to Eye Banks. Shri Jashwant B. Mehta, Managing Trustee of EBCRC and Ex- President of EBAI made repeated follow ups at various levels from time to time but no tangible progress inspite of commitments made at highest level (Law Minister) and statements made on parliament floor for change.
HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANT ACT (HOTA) 2011 provided partial remedies but still there was no effective change.
INCLUSION OF CONSENT COLUMN FOR EYE DONATION IN MEDICAL CAUSE OF DEATH CERTIFICATE REQUIRED FOR CREMINATION/BRUIAL PURPOSES
While the amended HOTA (2011) does not contain the Required Request provision for eyes/corneas in all of death, except for patients admitted in ICU wards, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health and Family Welfare) had issued instructions vide circular dated 7th February, 2011 to all the States to include consent column in certification in Medical cause of death.
Having followed up of this matter in Mumbai, after a long struggle of 2 ½ years, we could manage to include this consent column in Mumbai City. These certificates are issued by the Municipal Corporations to family physicians & all the hospitals.
However, as there was no progress in any other city in Maharashtra in this regards, the issue was therefore taken up in one of the PILs where Eye Bank Coordination and Research Centre (EBCRC) is an intervener and on behalf of Eye Bank Co-ordination and Research Centre, I had personally appeared all along and I am glad to inform you that the Division Bench of High Court was fully convinced of its impact in procuring more number of eye donations.
We got very favorable orders on this issue and strict directives have been given to the State Government for its implementation in the whole of Maharashtra. The Director Health was required to give affidavits that necessary instructions are given to all the Municipalities all over Maharashtra and they were made to produce confirmations in writing from all the Municipalities that they will comply with this directive.
I am annexing herewith the relevant Extracts of Court Orders and the Affidavit made by the Director Health (State Government) for the information and guidance of all.
In case, if Municipality in your area is not following these instructions, it should be taken up in right earnest as otherwise they could be liable for contempt of court.
In all major cities like Mumbai, Pune, Thane, Nasik, Nagpur etc. where we have eye donation activities this should go a long way in procuring
required number of eye donations to clear the wait list of corneally blind patients.
These orders & affidavit should also be helpful to others outside Maharashtra to pursue the cause.
Jashwant Mehta
Ex-President – Eye Bank Association of India (EBAI)
Chairman – Eye Bank Co-ordination and Research Centre (EBCRC)
I
EXTRACT FROM HIGH COURT ORDER
DATED 2ND MARCH, 2012
EXTRACTS FROM HIGH COURT ORDER
DATED 2ND MARCH, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 126 OF 2009
Sampat Shetty ….. PETITIONER
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Others …… RESPONDENTS
Ms. Ushajee Peri with Mihir Desai i/by Sajal Yadav for Petitioner
Mr.Niranjan Pandit, AGP for respondent No. 1 State
Mr. A. M. Sethna for respondent Union of India.
CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ AND
RANJIT MORE, J
DATE: March 2, 2012
Relevant Extracts
1. Mr. Jashwant Mehta representing respondent No.4 has invited our attention to the letter dated February 7, 2011 issued by Director (NCD), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India addressed to the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai requesting him to issue suitable instructions to all major hospitals in the state of Tamil Nadu to cover the following aspects:
“(i) While issuing the Death Certificate, a column should be incorporated making it mandatory for hospital authorities to make a request for eye donation from the next of kin of the deceased. For this purpose signature of the next of the kin of the deceased should be included at the bottom of certificate. Above his/her signature a sentence should be included clearly mentioning/stating as follows:
I, ………………………. Son / Daughter of ……………………… am willing/not willing to donate the eyes/cornea of my ……………. Close relative.
(ii) Duly trained doctors (Allopathic, AYUSH) technicians, PMOA (Para Medical Ophthalmic Assistants) and Nurses may be authorized to enucleate doner eyes with the consent of the kin of the deceased person, to promote eye donations.”
He further states that similar letters have been sent to the Health and Family Welfare Department of Government of Maharashtra as well. It is submitted that it is necessary to issue above instructions which will facilitate implementation of Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994.
2. He further invites our attention to the reply received by him under RTI dated June 15, 2011 from the Joint Director of Health Services (NCD), Mumbai. The material portion whereof is reproduced hereunder:-
“(i) The letter of Mrs. Sujaya Krishnan, Director (NCD) has been written to Pr. Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tamilnadu. However, we received copy of the letter along with your RTI application, after which all Civil Surgeons in the State will be informed to take action as per guidelines issued through the letter by GOI with permission of Government of Maharashtra. Since the death certificate is in a standardized format and would require Government permissions for modifications.
(ii) Each District Hospital has trainee Doctors to enucleate Eye Balls of deceased person.”
3. It, thus, appears from the above reply that the Joint Director of Health Services (NCD) is waiting for the permission of the Government of Maharashtra for issuing appropriate instructions as required by Government of India letter dated February 7, 2011 referred to here in above. In view of the above, we expect Government of Maharashtra to take necessary decision for issuing suitable instructions as required by Government of India letter dated February 7, 2011.
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
(RANJIT MORE, J)
II
EXTRACT FROM HIGH COURT ORDER
DATED 30TH OCTOBER, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 126 OF 2009
| Mr. Sampat Shetty | Petitioner |
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents
Mr. Mihir Desai a/q Chetan Mali, Mr. Rui Rodrigues i/by Mr. Sajal Yadav, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Niranjan pandit, AGP, for the Respondent – State.
Mr. A. M. Sethna, for Respondent No. 2 – UOI.
Mr. Jashwant Mehta, representing for Eye Bank – Respondent No. 4
Dr. Ramesh U. Kathare, Assistant Director of Health Services Mumbai, personally present.
CORAM : A. S. OKA &
A. S. GADKARI, JJ.
DATE: 30TH OCTOBER, 2014
RELEVANT EXTRACT:
1. At this stage, Mr. Mehta representing fourth Respondent invited our attention to paragraphs 3 to 5 of the same order. The learned AGP states that in terms of the said order, on 26th June, 2013 the State Government has issued directions to the Commissioners of the Municipal Corporations of all the Cities in the State to incorporate the column regarding donation of Eye-ball in the medical certificate of the cause of death. A separate direction has been issued by the State Government to the Commissioner of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation on the same date. Shri Mehta states that only the Mumbai Municipal Corporation has implemented the said direction.
2. The direction dated 26th June, 2013 which is addressed to the Commissioners of the Municipal Corporations is also addressed to the Director of the Municipal Administration with a request to the Director to issue instructions to the Municipal Councils in the State.
3. The learned AGP will take instructions whether the Director of Municipal Administration has issued similar instructions to all the Municipal Councils in the State. He will also take instructions whether other Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils in the State have implemented the said directions contained in letters dated 26th June, 2013. A statement on this aspect shall be made on the next date.
(A. S. GADKARI, J)
(A. S. OKA, J)
III
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 126 OF 2009
| Mr. Sampat Shetty | Petitioner |
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others Respondents
Mr. Mihir Desai for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. P. Pandit, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Jashwant Mehta, for Respondent No. 4 – Eye Bank
CORAM : A. S. OKA &
A. S. GADKARI, JJ.
DATE: 19TH NOVEMBER, 2014
RELEVANT EXTRACT:
1. There is another issue raised by the respondent No. 4 which is adverted in the last order and in particular paragraphs 4 to 6 thereof. The said paragraphs read thus:
“At this stage, Mr. Mehta representing fourth invited our attention to paragraphs 3 to 5 of the same order. The learned AGP states that in terms of the said order, on 26th June, 2013, the State Government has issued directions to the Commissioners of the Municipal Corporations of all the Cities in the State to incorporate the column regarding donation of Eye-Balls in the medical certificate of the cause of the death. A separate direction has been issued by the State Government to the Commissioner of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation on the same date. Shri Mehta states that only the Mumbai Municipal Corporation has implemented the said direction.
2. The direction dated 26th June, 2013 which is addressed to the Commissioners of the Municipal Corporations is also addressed to the Director of the Municipal Administration with a request to the Director to issue instructions to the Municipal Councils in the State.
3. The learned AGP will take instructions whether the Director of Municipal Administration has issued similar instructions to all the Municipal Councils in the State. He will also take instructions whether other Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils in the State have implemented the said directions contained in letters dated 26th June, 2013. A statement on this aspect shall be made in the next date.”
4. There is nothing placed on record to show that the instructions have been communicated to each and every municipal council in the State.
5. We hereby direct the Director of Medical Health Services to collect the information from the Municipal Corporations and the Municipal Councils in the State as regards the implementation of the directions contained in the letter dated 26th June 2013 addressed by the State Government which is already placed on record. He must also ascertain whether the directions have been communicated to all the Municipal Councils in the State. After considering the compliance affidavit, the Court may consider of issuing further directions as regards the directions contained in the letter dated 26th June 2013 issued by the State Government.
(A. S. GADKARI, J.)
(A. S. OKA, J.)
IV
EXTRACT FROM HIGH COURT ORDER
DATED 12TH JANUARY, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 126 OF 2009
| Mr. Sampat Shetty | Petitioner |
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents
Mr. Chetan Mali i/b Sajal Yadav for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. P. Pandit, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Jashwant Mehta, representing for Eye bank – Respondent No. 4
Mr. A. M. Sethna for Union of India.
CORAM : A. S. OKA & A. K. MENON, JJ.
DATE: 12TH JANUARY, 2015 P.C.
RELEVANT EXTRACT:
1. The intervenor appearing in person invited our attention to the chart on Page 17 of the compilation III tendered today. He states that the Pune Municipal Corporation as well as the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation have declined to implement the directions contained in letter dated 26th June, 2013 issued by the State Government.
2. From the said chart, we find that about 15 Municipal Corporations have implemented the directions. The affidavit disclosed that the directions have been communicated to the Municipal Councils in the State by a letter dated 14th December, 2014 which a part of the compilation tendered today.
3. We direct the State Government to issue fresh communication to those Municipal Corporations which have not complied with the directions contained in the letter dated 26th June, 2013. A fresh communication be issued within a period of three weeks from today. The State Government shall invite from all the Municipal Councils reports as regards the compliance of the said directions. A fresh affidavit shall be filed by an appropriate officer of the State setting out the compliances made by the Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils. Such affidavit shall be filed on or before 16th February, 2015. The affidavit will also deal with suggestions of the Petitioner regarding providing a link to the data on homepage of website of the concerned department. The affidavit will also state whether real time updation of data is possible.
4. For considering the compliance affidavit, the petition be listed 20th February, 2015 under the caption of “Directions”.
(A. K. MENON, J.)
(A. S. OKA, J.)