A leading hospital's plans to perform an urgent kidney transplant are being blocked because immigration officials will not let the donor into the country.
Doctors at Guy's and St Thomas' hospital in London have diagnosed Suthakaran Lalitharani, 32, with "end stage renal failure" and say her condition is so serious that she requires a transplant "at the earliest opportunity".
The mother of two requires four and a half hours dialysis every other day and is also suffering from complications caused by anaemia.
Her rare blood type means that none of her relatives in Britain can help her, but her mother-in-law Theivanai Balanchandran, 53, has been medically assessed as a "suitable donor" and is willing to fly to London from Sri Lanka to provide a kidney.
Mrs Balanchandran's visa application was supported by Guy's who asked that it be expedited "with the minimum of delay". They recommended she receive a six-month visa to facilitate a 12-week long convalescence period after the operation.
But consular officials in Colombo are refusing to allow the donor to enter Britain because they claim she is simply seeking an excuse to flee Sri Lanka.
As part of list of justifications condemned as heartless by family representatives, an official has told the potential donor: "You come from an area harshly affected by the civil war in this country. The war has created a strong pressure to emigrate and this is most keenly felt by people from the Tamil community."
The official adds that she may be trying to improve her living conditions. "I note that you state that your house was damaged in the tsunami," he says.
Though the application explicitly states the reason for the visa application, the officer says that having "taken the compassionate aspects of this application into consideration", it should not proceed. He doubts that relatives will financially support her stay and that she will have suitable accommodation.
The officer adds that Mrs Balanchandran's son and daughter-in-law entered Britain illegally as visitors but remained in another capacity, adding: "Given the opportunity I am not satisfied that you would not seek to do the same."
However, lawyers from the Wandsworth and Merton Law Centre have lodged an appeal accusing consular officials of underestimating the urgency of the situation. Quoting correspondence from Guy's, they say the proposed transplant offers patient "the best chance for rehabilitation and a normal life."
They add: "The visit is in the UK public interest. The cost of the transplant operation is considerably less than providing a patient with long-term haemodialysis treatment."
They argue that Mrs Balanchandran would want to return home because her husband and children will remain in Sri Lanka.
In their supporting letter, officials from Guy's say the patient is unlikely to receive a kidney from the waiting list "in the near future".
Mrs Lalitharani and her husband Balanchandran, who is also 32, fled to the UK in 1998. He claimed to have been tortured by the Sri Lankan government and the Home Office granted the couple indefinite leave to remain.
In December 2000 Mrs Lalitharani had an operation at Guy's to deal with a kidney blockage.
She experienced complications and had further surgery in June 2001. But the second operation was unsuccessful and last April she began dialysis treatment.
She told The Guardian she was desperate for the operation. "I suffer from vomiting, terrible headaches, high blood pressure and joint pains. I am too weak to look after my children and my husband cannot work because he has to look after them for me.
"The hospital have told me that if my mother-in-law isn't allowed to come to the UK to donate her kidney I'll have to go on a waiting list and I don't know when a match will come up for me.
"I'm heartbroken. I can't go anywhere and I can't do anything with my life."
Eloise Power, immigration case worker at Wandsworth and Merton Law Centre said: "The legal process is being used in an illogical and inhuman manner. Mrs Lalitharani is being deprived of her chance to live a normal life."
Keith Best, chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service, said the application process allows cases officers to reach inconsistent judgments.
He added: "The whole of immigration control is based on the presumption that applicants are guilty until proven innocent. We should come down hard on people who flout the rules, but we should not assume that everyone will do so."
A spokeswoman for UK Visas said they could not comment on an individual case but said all cases are "considered on their own merits" and open to appeal.