SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A. S. GADKARI, RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ
The Bandra Holy Family Hospital Society - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 5823 of 2025
Decided On : 17-11-2025

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Pradip Chavan a/w. Adv. Yogesh Naidu, Adv. Wesley Menezes, Adv. Sabiya Kazi i/by Adv. Anukul Seth and Adv. Delilah Jeffeerey, Advocates
For the Respondent: Dr. Birendra Saraf, A.G. a/w. Smt. M.M.Deshmukh, Acting PP a/w. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, APP, Adv. Gauri Joglekar i/by Meraki Legal, Dr. Anupama Sardana, Medical Superintendent Sister Sheeja and Mr. Denzil (CFO) present. API A.B. Kamble, Bandra PS., Sr. PI, R. Salunkhe, Bandra PS

Neglecting a senior citizen by a child is a legal abandonment under statutory obligations, invoking the state's duty to provide care and protection.

Headnote:(A) The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 2(a), 4, 5, 23, 24; The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Constitution of India - Article 21 - Abandonment of a senior citizen by her son; neglect of duty towards parental care; Hospital's request for assistance in discharging patient; Allegations of medical negligence raised as delaying tactic. (Para 19, 22, 32)

(B) Right to health and medical facilities as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution; The State's obligation to ensure medical care for citizens, especially the elderly; A son’s duty towards his parents is both moral and statutory. (Para 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The son of the patient, Mrs. Mohini Puri, admitted her to a hospital but subsequently failed to pay her medical bills totaling approximately Rs 16,00,000 and refused to discharge her. The hospital sought legal intervention due to his neglect.

Findings of Court:
The Respondent No. 3's conduct constituted abandonment of his mother. A prima facie case of neglect was established, and responsibilities were outlined for the son to comply with to ensure the mother's care and safety.

Issues: Whether the son is failing to fulfill his duty of care to his mother, thereby abandoning her, and whether the State can intervene in such situations under existing laws.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that failure to care for a senior citizen constitutes abandonment, invoking statutory obligations under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. The right to health is a fundamental right under Article 21.

Result: Petition allowed with directives for discharge of the patient from the hospital and provision for her care, with penalties on the son for neglect.

Table of Content
1. failure of son to care for ailing mother. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners seek court direction for patient discharge. (Para 3 , 4)
3. petitioners argue refusal of discharge due to medical negligence claims. (Para 5 , 6)
4. state's duty to ensure medical facilities under article 21. (Para 7 , 8)
5. right to health as integral to the right to life. (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT

[Per : RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J] :-

1) This is a case which shocks the conscience of the Court and strikes an emotional chord as the Court is called upon to look into a matter, where a son has failed to look after and care for his own ailing mother and instead, thought it appropriate to give precedence to raise and pursue legal remedies. A very unfortunate and sad situation has arisen, where a frail and ailing 76 years old mother/patient is left under the care of a hospital, neglected by an able son on the purported basis that, the treating hospital is allegedly guilty of medical negligence. The mother remains alone, under the care of the Hospital, deprived by the son of emotional and moral support which is most required by parents/senior citizens, when indisposed.

2) On 24th August 2025, Mrs. Mohini Puri, a 76 years of lady and mother of the Respondent No.3, was admitted by the Respondent No.3 to the Emergency Department of Petitioner No. 2 hospital, for imbalance and weakness. On the initial examination, it was revealed that, the patient having height of 5 ft weighed only 45 kgs which was indicative of mal-nourishment. The patient was diagnosed with acute right middle cerebral artery (MCA) territory infarct with mass effect of the right lateral ventricle. The Petitioner No. 2 Hospital has been taking care of the medical needs of the patient since August 2025. The Respondent No.3 after making initial payments, on the ground of medical negligence has refused and failed to make the balance payment of the medical bills and also refused to take discharge of his mother/patient from the Petitioner No.2 Hospital. The outstanding bill, as contended to be payable is about Rs 16,00,000/ -.

3) In this background, the Petitioners interalia seek appropriate writ, order or directions to the Respondent No.1 i.e Senior Police Officer, Bandra Police Station to take charge of the patient Mrs. Mohini Puri and shift her to her own residence. The Petitioners seek directions to the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2/Senior Citizens Tribunal to take steps as permitted and in accordance with the law.

4) The Petitioner No.1, The Bandra Holy Family Hospital Society is a Public Charitable Trust which runs and administers the Petitioner No.2 i.e. The Bandra Holy Family Hospital (Hospital).

SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS

5) Mr Pradip Chavan, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, submitted that: -

5.1) On 24th August 2025, Mrs. Mohini Puri (patient) was admitted by her son i.e Respondent No.3 in the Petitioner No.2 Hospital. The patient, was in malnourished condition, extremely weak and weighed only 45 kgs.

5.2) The Respondent No.3 has only paid an amount of Rs. 4,25,000/-, and an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- is due and payable to the hospital. The Respondent No.3 has refused to take discharge and take the patient/his mother to her own house. Respondent No.3 with view to avoid making payments of the balance amount of Rs.16,00,000/-, raised untenable/baseless allegations of medical negligence against the Petitioner No.2 Hospital.

5.3) The Respondent No.3 has at all times been un-cooperative, extremely difficult with the treating doctors, nurses and support staff. Respondent No.3 since the first week of October, 2025, avoided dialogue and continued to make false/baseless allegations including that of medical negligence against Petitioner No.2.

5.4) The patient was appropriately monitored, managed, treated and cared by Doctors and para-medical staff of the Petitioner No.2 and was stabilized. Health and condition of the patient improved to such an extent that by 4th October 2025 she did not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top