A kidney sale that led to a CB-CID probe in Tamil Nadu

This wasn’t just another case of cheating and breach of trust. The contents of the complaint filed in 2007 by a visibly fragile Mallika of Tondiarpet in Chennai were shocking. The woman claimed to have sold one of her kidneys for ₹1.5 lakh, but the agent cheated her by paying only ₹30,000 after the organ transplant.

While preliminary investigations uncovered a massive scam that exposed the well-oiled network of a corporate hospital, transplant surgeons and agents involved in sale/purchase of human organs, Chennai Police handed over the case to Crime Branch CID for further investigation.

However, considering the nature of the crime, there was a hurdle for the CB-CID to take up the case. It had no authority to investigate crimes related to commercial transactions involving human organs. By then, the Government of India had enacted a special law – Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 – applicable to all States where the Concerned Authority to investigate irregularities involving human organs is the Director of Medical Education.

The purpose of the law was to regulate the removal, storage and transplantation of human organs for treatment purposes and to prevent the commercial trade in human organs. It was also intended to “restrict the sale/purchase of human organs and protect poor people from falling prey to brokers and doctors/surgeons indulging in professional misconduct.”

“CB-CID faced a dilemma in this regard as the Human Organ Transplantation Act, 1994 did not empower the police to act on such complaints. Section 13 of the Act clearly stated that the Concerned Authority shall investigate criminal offenses under the Act and the court shall only entertain a complaint made by the Competent Authority,” said the then Deputy Superintendent of Police V. Parthasarathy, who was heading the Organized Crime Squad. CB-CID wrote in an article investigating the case.

However, considering the magnitude of the crime and the special investigation in which it might be necessary to unearth the entire network, the CB-CID decided to file a case under the then provisions of the Indian Penal Code, taking into account the allegations of cheating and forgery. “The victims were very poor and expected immediate police action. Public perception differed from the legal situation.”

The investigation revealed that Mallika was a slum dweller and severe poverty pushed her to sell her kidney. Kader Sharif of Tiruchi and his partner Seeni Muhammad of Keelakarai were in the business of convincing people to sell their kidneys at an attractive price. They contacted Raju of Tondiarpet and told him that there was a demand for kidneys for two patients – Durai Ayya Thirugnanam, a Sri Lankan national, and Nagarajan from Uthamapalayam in Theni district – who were later admitted to a corporate hospital in Madurai.

Creation of fake documents

Raju convinced Mallika and another person in Tondiarpet to sell his kidney. The woman was told that the surgery would not cause any physical weakness and was offered ₹ 1.5 lakh. The accused managed to obtain fake ration cards containing new IDs for two people. After preliminary medical check-up in Chennai, they were taken to the corporate hospital in Madurai.

“Surprisingly, the authorization committee failed to detect their counterfeit acts despite some contradictions in the documents. Their kidneys were operated on and removed… The fraudsters backtracked on their earlier promise and duped Mallika and another person by paying only Rs 30,000 each,” Mr. Parthasarathy wrote in a police journal published in 2010.

When her repeated demands fell on deaf ears and there was no hope of more money coming from the gang, Mallika, infuriated, filed a complaint with the Chennai Police, not knowing that she too had committed an offense under the Act by selling her kidney. In the case, which was later transferred to CB-CID, police arrested Sharif, Muhammad and Raju on charges of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy.

Secret agreement of hospital officials

“The investigation also pointed out that hospital authorities chose to ignore apparent discrepancies in the documents submitted by people seeking to donate their kidneys. While in some cases this could be due to negligence or carelessness, in many cases it was a result of tacit connivance by some doctors/surgeons with brokers of human organs,” the senior investigator said.

It is not clear whether action was taken under the Act by the Director of Medical Education (Relevant Authority) against the hospital authorities, surgeons, kidney donors and recipients.

Mr Parthasarathy, who belongs directly to the 1979 batch of Sub-Inspectors, was awarded the Prime Minister’s Police Medal for Excellence in Investigation in 2010.