Karnataka HC Quashes THOT Act Case Over Three Liver Transplants, Holds Surgeon Listed In Fortis Registration Could Operate At BGS Hospital

BGS Global Hospital held a valid registration to conduct liver transplants.

Dr. Mahesh Gopasetty was authorised by the Appropriate Authority through his association with Fortis Hospital, and his name was later included in BGS Hospital’s registration.

He performed three liver-transplant surgeries between 24 February and 1 March 2022.

Following a contractual dispute, Dr. Sunil Shenvi filed a private complaint alleging offences under Sections 18 and 20 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (“THOTA”).

The Appropriate Authority reported that there had been no violation of those provisions, but the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons.

The accused petitioned to quash the cognizance order, complaint and proceedings; during the writ proceedings, the parties also filed a settlement and sought closure.

Section 18 of the THOTA penalises a person rendering services at a hospital who participates in the removal of a human organ for transplantation without authority; Section 20 penalises contraventions of the Act or rules for which no separate punishment is provided.

Sections 10, 13 and 14 of the Act and Rules 7 and 9 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Rules, 1995 address hospital registration, the Appropriate Authority’s functions, and the staffing and expertise required at transplant centres.

The Court relied on Ajay Tejraj Oswal (Dr.) v. Joint Director of Health Services, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 941, for the proposition that the Act and Rules do not prohibit an expert recognised as part of a registered hospital’s transplant team from performing a transplant at another registered hospital.

The Court found that Dr. Gopasetty was authorised through Fortis Hospital and that the Appropriate Authority had subsequently included him in BGS Hospital’s registration.

Applying the reasoning in Ajay Tejraj Oswal, the Court rejected the allegation that he lacked authority to perform the surgeries at BGS Hospital.

It also noted that the Appropriate Authority had found no violation of Sections 18 or 20.

On the merits, therefore, the allegations did not warrant cognizance or continuation of the prosecution; the parties’ settlement further supported closure, though the Court decided the matter on its merits rather than solely accepting the compromise.

The Court allowed both writ petitions and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 33487 of 2025 before the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, including the order taking cognizance.

Pending applications were also disposed of.