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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2725

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SESHASAYEE, J.
Maya (alias) Maya Vijayamma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary to Health and Family Welfare Secretariat Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P.No. 22956 of 2023
Decided On : 28-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:V.R. Kamalanathan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1-R3, M. Bindran, Additional Government Pleader.

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 medical reports in guardianship decisions.

Headnote:

Guardianship - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 2(s), 2(t)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner seeks guardianship for her comatose husband under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The District Collector's decision was based on the report of the District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, which stated that the petitioner's husband's case did not fall within the province of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court directed the Directorate of Medical Education to examine the petitioner's husband and advise the District Collector. The medical report indicated the husband's severe condition, but the District Collector did not consider it. The Court found that the District Collector had misinterpreted the Act and directed the appointment of the petitioner as the guardian for her husband.

Issues: Interpretation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the District Collector's authority to grant guardianship.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court clarified the definitions of 'person with disability' and 'person with disability having high support needs' under the Act, emphasizing the Act's broader categorization of disabilities. It also highlighted the District Collector's duty to consider medical reports and make decisions in accordance with the Act.

Final Decision: The Court directed the District Collector to appoint the petitioner as the guardian for her husband within a week, emphasizing the misinterpretation of the Act by the District Collector.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare the petitioner Maya (alias) Maya Vijayamma as the guardian of her husband Mr.N.Krishnan Nair who is in a comatosa condition, presently in a vegetative state of mind to protect his interest, to collect income, liabilities, backwages, deposits, administer his bank accounts, investments etc., and in the event of necessity to manage the immovable properties of land and building bearing Plot No.19 to an extent of one ground (2400 square feet) in No.8, Ayyancheri Village, comprised in Survey No.6/2, Chengalpet Taluk, then Chengai Anna District presently Chengalpet District and Kattankulathur Panchayat Union limits was approved as reference No.C.S.A.R./D.T.C.P 86-120 L.P.95 within the Registration District of Madras South and Sub Registration District of Guduvancheri, and land and building being house sit in Kolathuvancheri Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, now Kanchipuram District comprised in Survey No.15 part, to an extent of 6,540 sq.ft. within Sub Registration District of Saidapet and Registration District of South Madras standing in her husband Mr.Krishnan Nair and to use the income to her husband and family welfare expenses.)

The petitioner''s husband is in comatose stage. Therefore, she requires herself to be appointed as the guardian for her husband under Section 58 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

2. When the matter came up before this Court on 10.08.2023, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that under the National Trust Act, and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Collector is empowered to grant guardianship only for persons with disability, and that this is limited to cases of autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation or a combination of any two or more such conditions, and includes a person suffering from severe multiple disabilities. He also added that the second respondent / District Collector may not be able to take a call unless a report is made available by a medical team.

3. This Court required the Directorate of Medical Education to constitute a team of doctors to examine the husband of the petitioner and to advise the District Collector, so as to enable him to take a decision.

4. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Director of Medical Education and Research also required the Director, Institute of Neurology , Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai to conduct medical inspection of the petitioner''s husband and submit a report. The Director Incharge and Professor, Institute of Neurology, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai has examined the petitioner''s husband with a team of doctors and submitted a medical report dated 14.08.2023, a copy of which is also produced before the Court, and the report reads as below :

"Patient was apparently normal till December 2022. First, he developed memory disturbance in the form of forgetting things, misplacing objects and searching for objects. Subsequently, he developed behavioural symptoms, in the form of excessive anger with anger outbursts. Later, patient also developed wandering behaviour, visual hallucinations and excessive craving for sweets. All his memory disturbances were progressive with a history of decreased sleep and unconcerned micturition since March 2023. He was unable to do his day to day activities and is completely bed ridden for the past three months. For past one and half months, he has difficulty in recognising his family members and speaks only one or two words with no appropriate response to questions. He also has tremulousness in both upper limbs without any history of seizure or head injury or any medical illnesses. For the above symptoms, patient was evaluated in Amritha Institute of Medical Sciences from 10/04/2023 to 15/04/2023, where he was diagnosed to have probable Creutzfeldt-Jakob di

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