Cannot simply shut our eyes to serious allegations! SC denies relief to Fortis Doctor Accused of Illegal Kidney Transplants

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today denied granting anticipatory bail to a doctor from Jaipur-based Fortis Hospital, who was earlier accused of performing illegal kidney transplants.

Earlier, the Rajasthan High Court had also denied quashing a First Information Report (FIR) filed against the petitioner before the Supreme Court-a Urosurgeon and a Nephrologist from Fortis Hospital, Jaipur, who were accused of involvement in the illegal kidney transplantation racket.

Now the Supreme Court has denied granting anticipatory bail to the Fortis Doctor who allegedly performed such illegal kidney transplants in connection with an international racket.

The Apex Court bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed in this regard while stating that it was a serious matter that required to be investigated in accordance with the law.

"No question of anticipatory bail in a serious matter like this," observed Justice Ravikumar.

Also Read: Fortis Hospital Nephrologist, Urologist arrested in organ transplant NOC forgery case

As per the latest media report by Live Law, on August 30, a Rajasthan High Court Jaipur bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena had denied granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner doctor under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported about the fraudulent case involving the issuance of fake No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for organ transplants. Busting this racket involving the sale and purchase of fake NOCs for organ transplants, a team of Jaipur Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had arrested three hospital employees- an administrator officer of government-run Sawai Man Singh (SMS) Hospital, and transplant coordinators of EHCC Hospital and Fortis Hospital.

Earlier, in this connection, the vice-chancellor of Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) Dr. Bhandari resigned from his position voluntarily. Nephrologist Dr Goswami and urologist Dr Gupta of Fortis Hospital were arrested after police found evidence of their direct involvement. The petitioner- Dr. Bansal (a Urosurgeon) and Dr. Goswami booked in this connection for offences u/s. 420, 419, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

After the Rajasthan HC Dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Dr. Bansal on August 30, an application was filed before the Supreme Court by the doctor seeking anticipatory bail. When the petitioner's counsel started his arguments, the Apex Court bench clarified that it would not say anything on the merits of the case unless the Counsel wanted to have an adverse order against his client, he should not argue.

However, the counsel continued his arguments and submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner doctor were not maintainable under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994.

Also Read: Fake Organ Transplant NOC Case: RUHS Vice Chancellor Dr Sudhir Bhandari resigns

Live Law has reported that Justice Ravikumar observed at this outset,

"Allegation is kidneys of several persons were taken out...We are not ordering for your arrest. But we cannot simply shut our eyes when serious allegation is... persons-patients who were admitted in that hospital, some of them[their kidneys were taken out]. Understand one thing, when somebody is admitted in a hospital, going back, whether you will be able to know whether your kidney is still there is or not. Only in later point of time you will find it...You are saying this is very silly or simple allegations."

When the petitioner's counsel tried to clarify that it was not the case that the kidneys were not taken out but the argument was that it was done with the patient's consent. He also stated that the allegation was that the receiver and the kidney donor should be related as per the 1994 Act.

"We are carrying out operations on the basis of NOCs[non-objection certificates] which are supposed to be given by Government officials which is given to the management of the Hospital...They should be related. It is not the case that we are taking out the [kidneys] without knowledge," submitted the counsel, further adding that it is the patient who came to them saying that the receiver and the donor were related.

However, the Court refused to grant any protection to the petitioner doctor while reiterating that the matter required investigation. In response, the counsel submitted that they were cooperating with the investigation. He further pointed out that the people of the management alleged to be involved in the case have already been granted bail.

When the counsel continued to argue despite the Court's refusal to hear the same, the Court warned, "You are inviting some observations. We are sure about these kinds of allegations. This is to be investigated seriously."

"I am the operating doctor. I am saving lives," submitted the Counsel. 

When as a last chance, the counsel asked if he could withdraw the SLP, the Court refused. At this outset, Justice Ravikumar observed,

"You are trying to say this is a very simple matter, it is to only be ignored. Sorry, we cannot ignore because lives of persons who trust in approaching and getting admitted to the hospitals..if this is the kind of allegation, it should be investigated."

Plea Before Rajasthan HC: 

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that Dr. Goswami and Urosurgeon Dr. Bansal filed pleas after an FIR was registered at Police Station, Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur City (East) for offences u/s. 420, 419, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). During the investigation process, additional charges were brought against them under Section 370 IPC and Sections 18 and 19 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (TOHO Act, 1994).

As per the FIR in question, an international racket was busted in respect of the illegal transplantation of a human organ(kidney) at Fortis Hospital, Jaipur under section 370 IPC as also under Sections 18 and 19 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. Besides, Section 13(3)(iv) of the TOHO Act, 1994, was also invoked.

However, denying to quash the proceedings against the doctors, the HC bench had observed, "In the opinion of this Court, no prima facie case is made out in favour of petitioners to quash the impugned FIR. As per the investigation report, petitioner No.1 has been found to be in telephonic contact with brokers namely Akash, Prashant Yadav and Gopal, as much as money transaction from his bank account with the ***Sharma, has also come on record. Such money transaction is apprehended to be part of payment apart from salary, for performing operation of kidney transplantation illegally. It has revealed in the investigation that petitioner No.1 performed operation of kidney transplantation as a team member of petitioner No.2, and both petitioners, as also coordinator Mr. Sharma were working at Manipal Hospital, Jaipur and have joined Fortis Escort Hospital, Jaipur together. In the present case, offences under the Indian Penal Code u/s. 419, 420, 370, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B and offences u/s. 18 and 19 of the TOHO Act, 1994, both are involved, therefore, it may not be said that cognizable offence is not involved in the impugned FIR."

Also Read: Illegal Kidney Transplantation Racket: NO HC Relief to Fortis Hospital Urosurgeon, Nephrologist