Last Updated:
She wanted to donate a kidney to anyone who needed it. No relative, no friend, no emotional bond. Just a stranger whose life might continue because of her choice.
Without a personal relationship or a “special reason,” pure altruism did not fit neatly into the legal template. In Pic: Dr Thankam Subramonian being celebrated at her workplace. Image: Manipal Hospitals/Instagram
On most mornings, the city wakes to traffic horns and hospital sirens, but for one Bengaluru doctor, the sound that lingered long after her shifts ended was quieter: the steady hum of dialysis machines. For years, Dr Thankam Subramonian watched patients return week after week, their lives tethered to tubes and schedules, waiting for a kidney that never came. Somewhere between ward rounds and late evening chart notes, a resolve took root. She would give one of hers.
Nearly 10 years ago, she approached authorities with a simple idea that felt radical within the system. She wanted to donate a kidney to anyone who needed it. No relative, no friend, no emotional bond. Just a stranger whose life might continue because of her choice.
As a 58-year-old medical professional, she had seen too many patients living on borrowed time, dependent on dialysis because a compatible family donor was unavailable. This fetal medicine consultant’s decision was not impulsive. It was shaped by years of witnessing quiet suffering.
When Compassion Meets Suspicion
The law, however, is designed to distrust such simplicity. Under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, safeguards exist to prevent organ trafficking and commercial exploitation. When an organ moves between unrelated individuals, the system tightens its grip.
Committees search for financial motives, coercion, or hidden exchanges. In a country scarred by organ trade scandals, suspicion is not accidental, it is policy.
A decade ago, the State Authorization Committee struggled to categorize her request. Without a personal relationship or a “special reason,” pure altruism did not fit neatly into the legal template. Her proposal stalled, caught between caution and disbelief.
Her family didn’t approve her decision to be an altruistic donor as well. Raj, her brother said to TNIE, that the vast majority of the family didn’t want her to do it at first. It is the lack of awareness. The risk to longevity is less than 1%. But she is a very strong-willed person.” Eventually, the family came around.
A Second Attempt, Years Later
Time passed, but the idea did not leave her. Now in her mid-fifties, she tried again with the help of her colleagues at Manipal Hospital. This time, she identified a recipient in urgent need and underwent a rigorous medical process. She cleared physical exams, psychological evaluation, and compatibility testing.
Every parameter confirmed she was fit to donate. Yet the response remained unchanged. This time her case went to the Manipal hospital council. They met the family members of Dr Thankam Subramonian including her husband two years ago and still declined to allow her to ahead with her decision.
The committee rejected the donation, stating there was no affection or attachment between donor and recipient. In essence, because she did not know the person she hoped to save, her motive could not be easily trusted.
Taking the Question to the High Court
Refusing to accept procedural logic as the final answer, she has taken her case to the Karnataka High Court. Her petition asks the judiciary to confront a difficult question: can a person be allowed to save a stranger’s life simply because they wish to?
Her argument rests on three pointers:
She asserts bodily autonomy, stating that as a competent adult and medical professional she has the right to decide the fate of her own organs.
She challenges the interpretation of “special reason,” arguing that humanitarian concern and altruism should qualify under the law.
She points to a decade of attempts as proof of intent, demonstrating a long-standing mission rather than any financial motive.
Beyond One Donation
What lies before the court is larger than a single transplant approval. The case probes the boundaries between protection and paternalism, between vigilance and mistrust.
India’s transplant framework has long prioritized blood relations and emotional bonds as safeguards against illegal trade. Yet waiting lists grow longer, and thousands remain dependent on dialysis, caught between medical possibility and donor scarcity.
In the end, the High Court bench led by Justice Suraj Govindaraj recognized that the case could not be treated as routine. The court noted the time sensitive nature of the request, pointing out that the doctor’s family history of diabetes could, over time, affect her kidney health and potentially make it unsuitable for donation.
Acknowledging this window of medical viability, the judge treated the matter with urgency and delivered an order on November 25, 2025.
A Promise Waiting to Be Fulfilled
For the doctor at the center of this legal battle, the matter is less philosophical. She is not seeking recognition or heroism. She just completed a promise she made to herself in the quiet corridors of a hospital ward: that if she could save a life, she would. And she did.
Today, the doctor is recovering at home, her days marked not by court dates or hospital corridors but by rest, follow up calls, and the steady return of strength. Those close to her say she speaks of the surgery with calm relief rather than triumph.
She hopes her decision travels further than her own recovery. If her journey persuades even a few young people to consider organ donation, she believes the effort will have multiplied its meaning. In choosing to give, she wants others to see that saving a life is not extraordinary — it is simply human.
February 19, 2026, 17:26 IST
Stay Ahead, Read Faster
Scan the QR code to download the News18 app and enjoy a seamless news experience anytime, anywhere.
login