IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.
Anjuben Karansinh Dodiya & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 3687 of 2024
Decided on : 22-07-2024
Guardian - Appointment of Guardian for Comatose Patient - The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890; The Mental Health Act, 1987; The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The court recognized the absence of specific legislation for appointing guardians for comatose patients and invoked its parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to appoint a guardian.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to appoint the wife of a comatose patient as his guardian and manager of his properties due to his inability to manage his affairs after suffering a severe brain injury.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no existing legislative framework for appointing a guardian for a comatose patient, thus allowing the invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to fulfill the patient's best interests.
Issues: Whether the court can appoint a guardian for a patient in a comatose state in the absence of specific legislative provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it could exercise parens patriae jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for a comatose patient when no statutory remedy exists, ensuring the protection of the patient's rights.
Result: The court appointed the petitioner as guardian and manager of the patient's properties.
JUDGMENT :
Issue rule, returnable forthwith. Ms Foram Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.
2. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for direction to hold and declare the petitioner no.1 – Anjuben Karansinh Dodiya as a guardian of Karansinh Rajusinh Dodiya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the patient’), who is in a vegetative/comatose state. Further prayer is for declaring the petitioner no.1 – Anjuben Karansinh Dodiya as the manager of the movable and immovable properties belonging to the patient.
3. Mr Siddharth Keshkani, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.1 is the wife of the patient. The marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu rites in the year 1996 and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are the sons of the patient, aged 20 years and 15 years respectively. It is submitted that in the year 2019, the patient was detected with dengue and was hospitalized. Owing to the weakness, the patient, fell on the floor, and as a result, has sustained brain hemorrhage with severe medical complications. It is thereafter, that the patient was shifted to Zydus Hospital and has undergone decompressive craniectomy with evacuation of Acute SDH. It is submitted that as per the certificate, the patient, is in unconscious state. The patient is totally bedridden, unresponsive, unable to communicate via sign language. The patient, since is unconscious, disoriented and non-reactive, the petitioners, therefore, are collectively taking care of the patient, including the medical follow-ups. Even after passage of more than five years, there is no progress in the health condition of the patient and is in a vegetative state. The recovery is full of uncertainty and beyond the medical scope.
3.1 It is submitted that the petitioners are spending approximately Rs.2 lac per month on the medical treatment of the patient. Besides, the patient, requires constant assistance, supervision and active medical monitoring and the family, i.e. the petitioners, are facing unsurmountable difficulties in managing the finances for the ongoing treatment.
3.2 It is submitted that even the team constituted by this Court, has certified that the patient, is sub-conscious. Furthermore, the sons and the father-in-law, have filed their affidavits, indicating that they have no objection if the petitioner no.1, is appointed as the guardian and manager to deal with the movable and immovable properties of the patient. It is therefore, urged that the petitioner no.1 being the wife, be declared as the manager of the movable and immovable properties belonging to the patient.
3.3 It is submitted that the petitioners, have sought recourse of all the statutes governing the field; however, there is no legislative provision for appointment of guardian of patient lying in comatose state, namely, The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, The Mental Health Act, 1987 (repealed), The National Trust Act for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999, so also the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It is therefore, the captioned writ petition has been filed, invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court of “parens patriae”, with a permission to allow the petitioner no.1 to act as a guardian of the patient.
3.4 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Shobha Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Kerala reported in 2101 SCC OnLine Ker 739. It has been held and observed that in absence of any legislation governing appointment of the guardian to the patient, who is in comatose state, it would be open for the parties to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer seeking declaration of appointment of a guardian. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Sairabanu Mohammad Rafi vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 8091. It is submitted that it has been held a
Surjit Singh Karla vs. Union of India and another [1991(2) SCC 87
Uma Mittal & Others vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2020 All 202
The court established that it can act as parens patriae to appoint a guardian for a comatose patient when no legislative provisions exist.
Point of Law : Transactions in respect of the movable and immovable properties of the patient, by the petitioner - guardian, shall be strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. If the petitio....
Point of law: It shall be the duty of the petitioner – guardian to meet the obligations/duties similar to those as described under Section 15 and to maintain and submit the accounts similar to those ....
The court exercises parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 to appoint a guardian for a comatose individual, highlighting the absence of specific legislation for such cases.
The court exercises parens patriae jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for an individual in a vegetative state due to inadequate legal provisions.
The Court can appoint a guardian for an individual in a comatose state under Article 226 of the Constitution, acting as parens patriae to protect the individual's interests.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint guardians and managers for a person suffering from dementia, the recognition of the Petitioners' authority by bank....
The Court clarified the interpretation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, emphasizing the broader categorization of disabilities and the duty of the District Collector to consider ....
The doctrine of parens patriae allows courts to appoint guardians for individuals unable to care for themselves, ensuring their rights and welfare are protected.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.