Through this constitutional petition a direc tion is sought to be issued to the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to decide the complaint of the petitioner with a further direction to Respondent No. 2 to take legal action against Respondent No 3.
2. Brief facts giving rise -to the filing of this constitutional petition are that Respondent No 3/Dr. Manzoor Hussain Malik conducted a cornea transplant operation of the petitioner on 02.02.2015 but it had failed which fact was not conveyed to the petitioner for more than 11/2 years. The petitioner had to go to India where his second transplantation was successfully conducted by Dr. Neera Agarwal, Eye Surgeon at New Delhi India, on 22.7.2016 as a result of which the petitioner's vision of his left eye was recovered. The petitioner inquired and then came to know that Respondent No. 3 was not an authorized eye surgeon for the 'purposes of transplantation of eye under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 2010. Aggrieved of the acts of Respondent No. 3, a complaint was filed before Respondent No. 1 to take legal action against Respondent No. 3 but it has not been decided, hence this writ petition.
3. In the report and parawise comments submitted by Respondents No. 1 and 2/Punjab Human Organs Transplant Authority (PHOT A) constituted to eradicate the menace of illegal transplantation of human organs and tissues by regulating the sphere of transplantation of human organs and tissues for therapeutic purposes. It was also admitted that a complaint was submitted by the petitioner upon which a show-cause notice was sent to Respondent No 3 and the reply was received where he was only warned by Respondent No. 2 upon the direction of Respondent No. 1 with observation, to get himself registered with PHOT A and that in case any complaint is received against him, strict action was to be taken against him. However , it was also mentioned that a complaint was pending before the Punjab Healthcare Commission. It was also mentioned in paragraph 7 that Respondent No. 3 was not a registered transplant surgeon with PHOT A, therefore, his cancellation of registration is out of question, though he has undertaken in his reply that he had already left transplantation since February 2015 and unless registered with PHOT A he would not practice human organ transplantation.
4. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioner has already approached the Consume Court against the said respondent where the complaint has been dismissed, and that on 14.03.2017 a compromise was also effected between the parties resultin g into the withdrawal of another private complaint by paying an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner . It was also specifically alleged that a complaint before the Punjab Healthcare Commission has been filed on 02.01.2017 under Section 28(b) of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010.
5. The stand of Respondent No. 3 is that after the dismissal of the complaint before the Consumer Court and withdrawal of the private complaint from the Court of Magistrate the matter was compromised and according to Respondent No. 3 a complaint before the Punjab Healthcare Commission is also pending.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. Under the Punjab Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2012 made under Section 9 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 2010 qualifications for registration of a transplant surgeon have been prescribed and under . Rule 14(iii)(d) it is described that for cornea transplantation, FCPS, M.S. ophthalmology or equivalent qualification with at least one year post FCPS or M.S. with training at a recognized hospital carrying out corneal transplant operations is mandatory . Rule 14(iii)(d) of the Punjab Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2012 is reproduced as under:-- "(d) cornea transplantation: FCPS, M.S. ophthalmology or equivalent qualification with at least one year post FCPS or M.S. training, in a recognized hospital carrying out corneal transplant operations."
It is not denied by Respondents No. 2 and 3 that Respondent No. 3 is not a registered practitioner for cornea transplant as mentioned from his reply . Section 10 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 2010 prescribed the punishment for removal of human organs without authority . Under Section 8(2) the Monitoring Authority is responsible to monitor transp lantation and enforce the standards, investigate and hold the inquiry into the allegations of breach of any provision of the Act. This Act was promulgated on 18.3.2010. On 05.07.2014 vide Notification No S.O. (H&D) 7-7/2012(HOT A) dated 27.06.2014 the Chief Minister , Punjab, has already constituted regional Divisional Level Committees headed by Commissioner of the Division with Regional Police Officer (RPO), Principal of Medical College, Director Health and one expert of the relevant field as its members with the power to examine and investigate the complaint regarding the alleged illegal transplants in their divisions. In the comments certain copies of the FIRs registered under Sections 10/1 1 of the PHOT A 2010 have been enclosed.
8. From the perusal of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 2010 and Punjab Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2012 and Notification No. S.O. (H&D) 7-7/2012(HOT A) dated 27.06.2014, it is apparent that the Government has taken serious steps in curbing the illegal transplantation of human tissues and organs and such act has also been made an offence under Sections 10/11 of PHO TA, 2010. However , in the case of the petitioner it appears that the matter was agitated by him but it was not pursued vigorously for the reason best known to the petitioner . However , a complaint before the Punjab Healthcare Commission is pending where the authority will be in a better position to appreciate the grievance and give finding on the allegations levelled by the petitioner .
8. In view of the facts given by the respe ctive parties and also the documents brought before this Court showing their conduct, it is appropriate that this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the complaint before the Punjab Healthcare Commission, if pending, will be attended to and decided in accordance with, law at the earliest.