THOTA| Doctor Authorised By Appropriate Authority Through One Hospital Can Perform Emergency Transplant At Another Without Fresh Authority: Karnataka High Court
The Court quashed a criminal case under Sections 18 and 20 of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act (THOTA), notes complainant-doctor and accused had also settled, but decides matter on merits.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that a liver transplant surgeon already authorised by the Appropriate Authority through one registered hospital is not acting without authority when he performs a surgery in emergent circumstances at another hospital. In such a case, the Court said, no offence under Sections 18 and 20 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (THOTA) is made out.
The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against seven accused, including Gleneagles Healthcare India Private Limited and several doctors and officials connected with BGS Global Hospital. It also noted that the complainant and the accused had entered into a settlement, but chose to decide the matter on merits, “albeit on the periphery”, instead of closing it on the compromise alone.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna referring to Ajay Tejraj Oswal (Dr.) v. Joint Director of Health Services 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 941 observed, “The Bombay High Court holds that in emergent circumstances if a doctor who is permitted to perform liver transplantation by the appropriate authority of any hospital can be permitted to perform the said surgery on emergent circumstance in a hospital not registered through the said hospital. In the case at hand, Dr. Mahesh Gopasetty is registered through Fortis hospital at the hands of the appropriate authority. In the light of the judgment of Bombay High Court, to which I am in complete agreement, the contention that the doctor was not authorised to perform surgery is unacceptable. Therefore, on merit of the matter as well, the doctors have not committed any offence under the Act for the concerned Court to have taken cognizance”.
Senior Advocate Udaya Holla appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Nischal Dev B.R. appeared for the respondent.
The complainant, Dr. Sunil Shenvi, was engaged as a consultant at BGS Hospital under two successive contracts. Liver transplants were performed on three patients between February 24 and March 1, 2022, by Dr. Mahesh Gopasetty under emergent circumstances.
After the second contract was terminated, the complainant alleged that Dr. Gopasetty lacked authority to operate. The Court noted that the complainant was not available when the surgeries became imminent, and that he had earlier served a legal notice over alleged contractual dues.
The police declined to register the complaint, stating that offences under the Act can be investigated only by the Appropriate Authority. The complainant then approached the Magistrate, pursuant to which, the Appropriate Authority submitted a report finding no violation of Section 18 or 20 by any accused.
Despite this, the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, took cognizance on August 29, 2025, and the case was registered, thereafter the accused moved the High Court in two writ petitions.
The Court found that Dr. Gopasetty had been authorised by the Appropriate Authority to perform liver transplants, through a certificate issued for Fortis Hospital valid from November 20, 2018 to November 19, 2023. The entire complaint rested on the allegation that he lacked authority.
“In the light of the offence itself not being made out and apart from the two, the complainant and the accused, entering into a settlement, there is no warrant for continuation of proceedings before the concerned Court”, allowing the petition, the Bench noted.
Cause Title: Dr. Pradeep Krishna R.V. & Ors v. Dr. Sunil Shenvi & Anr, Writ Petition No. 33361 of 2025 (GM-RES)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Udaya Holla, Advocates Anind Thomas, Vinudeep R., Abhijnan Jha and Chetan Chawla.
Respondent: Advocate Nischal Dev B.R.