Image by WangXiNa on Freepik
It was not just another case of cheating and criminal breach of trust. In 2007, the contents of the complaint lodged by a visibly fragile Mallika of Tondiarpet in Chennai were shocking. The woman alleged she sold one of her kidneys for ₹1.5 lakh but the agent cheated her by settling only ₹30,000 after the organ was transplanted.
With preliminary inquiries unfolding a major scam exposing a well-oiled network of a corporate hospital, transplant surgeons and agents involved in the sale/purchase of human organs, the Chennai Police handed over the case to the Crime Branch CID for further investigation.
But, there was a catch for the CB-CID in taking up the case, considering the nature of the crime. They had no jurisdiction to investigate offences related to commercial dealings involving human organs. The Government of India had by then passed a special law — the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 — applicable to all States where the Appropriate Authority to probe irregularities relating to human organs was the Director of Medical Education.
The objective of the law was to provide for the regulation of removal, storage and transplantation of human organs for therapeutic purposes and for the prevention of commercial dealings in human organs. It was also intended “to restrict the sale/purchase of human organs and protect poor people from falling into the trap of brokers and doctors/surgeons indulging in professional misconduct.”
“The CB-CID faced a dilemma in this matter as the Transplantation of Human organ Act, 1994, did not empower the police to act on such complaints. Section 13 of the Act clearly stipulated that the Appropriate Authority would probe the offences punishable under the Act and the court would take cognisance of only on a complaint filed by the Competent Authority,” the then Deputy Superintendent of Police V. Parthasarathy who led the Organised Crime Unit of the CB-CID in investigating the case wrote in an article.
However, considering the magnitude of the crime and specialised investigation that it may require to unearth the entire network, the CB-CID decided to register a case under the provisions of the then Indian Penal Code taking into account the allegations of cheating and forgery. “The victims were very poor and expected immediate action by the police. The public perception was different from the legal position.”
Investigation revealed that Mallika was a slum dweller and acute poverty drove her to sell her kidney. Kader Sherif of Tiruchi and his associate Seeni Mohammed of Keelakarai were in the business of luring people into selling their kidney for 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 of Uthamapalayam in Theni district – who were then admitted in a corporate hospital in Madurai.
Creation of bogus documents
Raju convinced Mallika and another person in Tondiarpet to sell their kidney. The woman was told that the operation would not cause any physical weakness and offered ₹1.5 lakh. The accused persons managed to get fake ration cards with new identities for the two people. After a preliminary health check in Chennai, they were taken to the corporate hospital in Madurai.
“Surprisingly, the authorisation committee failed to detect their act of impersonation in spite of certain contradictions in the documents. Their kidneys were operated upon and removed…the fraudsters backtracked from their earlier promise and cheated Mallika and another person by paying them only Rs. 30,000 each,” Mr. Parthasarathy wrote in a police journal published in 2010.
After repeated demands fell on deaf ears and with no hope of any more money coming from the gang, an infuriated Mallika lodged a complaint with the Chennai Police not knowing that she had also committed an offence under the Act by selling her kidney. In the case which was later transferred to the CB-CID, police arrested Sheriff, Mohammed and Raju on charges of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy.
Collusion of hospital authorities
“The probe also pointed out that hospital authorities chose to ignore glaring contradictions in the documents produced by the people willing to donate their kidneys. While in some cases this could be on account of negligence or oversight, in many instances this was a result of tacit connivance of certain 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 (Appropriate Authority) against the hospital authorities, surgeons, the kidney donors and recipients.
Mr. Parthasarathy who belongs to the 1979-batch of direct Sub-Inspectors was awarded the Chief Minister’s Police Medal for Excellence in Investigation in 2010.
Published – March 18, 2026 06:30 am IST
