Last updated:
She wanted to donate a kidney to someone who needed it. No relatives, no friends, no emotional ties. Just a stranger whose life can continue because of her choices.
Without a personal connection or “special reason”, pure altruism does not fit neatly into the legal template. In photo: Dr. Thankam Subramonian being celebrated at his workplace. Image: Manipal Hospitals/Instagram
Most mornings, the city wakes up to traffic horns and hospital sirens, but for one Bengaluru doctor, the sound that lingered long after her shift was over was silence: the steady hum of dialysis machines. For years, Dr. Thankam Subramanian watched patients return week after week, their lives tied to tubes and schedules, waiting for a kidney that never came. Somewhere between the ward rounds and the late evening chart notes, a resolution took root. She will give one of hers.
About 10 years ago, she approached executives with a simple idea that felt revolutionary within the system. She wanted to donate a kidney to someone who needed it. No relatives, no friends, no emotional ties. Just a stranger whose life can continue because of her choices.
As a 58-year-old medical professional, she has seen many patients who were living on borrowed time, dependent on dialysis because there was no compatible family donor available. This decision of the fetal medicine consultant was not impulsive. It was shaped by years of witnessing quiet suffering.
When compassion meets suspicion
However, the law is designed to disbelieve such simplicity. Under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, safeguards are in place to prevent trafficking and commercial exploitation of organs. When an organ moves between unrelated individuals, the system tightens its grip.
Committees discover 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 classify his request. Without a personal connection or “special reason”, pure altruism does not fit neatly into the legal template. Caught between caution and disbelief, his proposal stalled.
Even his family did not approve of his decision to become a charitable donor. Raj, her brother, told TNIE that most of the family did not want her to do it at first. This is lack of awareness. The risk of longevity is less than 1%. But she’s a very strong-willed person.” Eventually, the family arrived.
A second attempt, years later
Time passed, but the thought did not leave him. Now in his fifties, he tried again with the help of his colleagues at Manipal Hospital. This time, she identified a recipient in urgent need and went through a rigorous medical process. He passed a physical examination, psychological evaluation and compatibility testing.
Every parameter confirmed that she was fit to donate. Yet the reaction remained unchanged. This time his case went to Manipal Hospital Council. They had met Dr Thankam Subramonian’s family members, including her husband, two years ago and still refused to allow them to go ahead with their decision.
The committee rejected the donation saying that there was no affection or attachment between the donor and the recipient. In short, because she did not know the person she wanted to save, her motives could not easily be trusted.
take the question to a higher court
Refusing to accept the procedural argument as the final answer, she has taken her case to the Karnataka High Court. Their petition asks the judiciary to confront a difficult question: Can a person be allowed to save the life of a stranger just because he wants to do so?
His argument is based on three points:
She claims bodily autonomy and says that as a competent adult and medical professional she has the right to decide the fate of her organs.
She challenges the “special reason” interpretation, arguing that humanitarian concern and altruism should qualify under the law.
She points to a decade of efforts as evidence of intent, demonstrating a long-standing mission rather than any financial motive.
beyond a donation
What is before the court is bigger than the approval of a single transplant. The case examines the boundaries between protection and paternalism, vigilance and distrust.
India’s transplantation framework has long prioritized blood ties and emotional ties as safeguards against trafficking. Yet waiting lists are growing longer, and thousands of people rely on dialysis, torn between medical possibility and a lack of a donor.
Ultimately, the High Court bench led by Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that the case could not be considered routine. The court took note of the time-sensitive nature of the request, pointing out that the history of diabetes in the doctor’s family could, over time, affect the health of his kidney and potentially make it unsuitable for donation.
Recognizing this window of medical feasibility, the judge gave the case urgent consideration and granted 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 no less philosophical. She’s not looking for recognition or heroism. In the quiet corridors of the hospital ward she fulfilled a promise she made to herself: that if she could save one life, she would. And he 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 a steady return of strength. People close to her say she talks about the surgery with quiet relief rather than triumph.
She hopes her decision will go far beyond his recovery. If his journey also inspires some youth to consider organ donation, he believes the meaning of this endeavor will increase manifold. When choosing to give, she wants others to see that saving a life isn’t extraordinary – it’s simply humane.
February 19, 2026, 17:26 IST
stay ahead, read fast
Scan the QR code to download the News18 app and enjoy a seamless news experience anytime, anywhere.
