Doctor accused of illegal kidney transplant did not get relief from Supreme Court, know the whole matter

New Delhi: The Supreme Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of a doctor of a private hospital in Jaipur. The doctor is accused of illegally performing kidney transplants and is linked to an international racket. Supreme Court Justice CT Ravikumar said that this matter is very serious and there is a need for investigation in this matter. The matter should be investigated as per the law and in such a situation the petitioner’s application in this matter is rejected.

Petition in SC after setback from High Court

The petitioner’s application had already been rejected by the Rajasthan High Court, after which he/she had approached the Supreme Court. In this case, his/her lawyer presented arguments on behalf of the petitioner in the Supreme Court and challenged the decision of the Rajasthan High Court. The Supreme Court said that this is a serious matter and there is no question of anticipatory bail in it. We do not want to say anything on the merit of the case. If the lawyers want to argue, then we are ready to pass the order.

Doctor accused of removing kidney

The Supreme Court said that in this case it is alleged that the kidneys of many people have been removed. We are not passing arrest orders but we cannot close our eyes to such a serious matter. It is alleged that the kidneys of some patients who were admitted have been removed. One thing has to be understood that if someone is admitted to the hospital and when he/she is discharged, will he/she be in a position to know whether the kidney is his/her or has been removed. All this becomes known only later. And you are saying that the allegations are minor.

Petitioner’s lawyer made this demand

The petitioner’s lawyer said that it is not the case that someone’s kidney has been removed. Rather it happened with consent. This has happened under the provisions of the Act. The operation has been done on the basis of NOC from government officials. After the hearing, the court refused to grant relief to the petitioner and refused to give any protection. On presenting continuous arguments, the court warned the petitioner’s lawyer and said that you want the court to make some comments in this matter. We are certain that the investigation in such a case should be done seriously.

Appeal to the President on the petition of the Chief Minister’s killer! In which case did the Supreme Court take such a big initiative?

People who go to hospital have trust – Court

The petitioner’s lawyer said that our client is a doctor and saves people’s lives through operations. Then the Justice said that you are saying that this is a simple issue. We cannot ignore such a matter. People who go to the hospital have trust and their lives are valuable. If there is such an allegation then there is a need for investigation.