Madras High Court Allows Wife of Comatose Patient To Manage His Property As His Guardian

The case arose from a petition filed by Chennai resident, seeking appointment as the guardian of her husband, who has been in a vegetative state for the past five months. Petitioner also sought permission to manage her husband's bank account and handle his property affairs.

Initially, the single judge ruled against the petitioner, stating that the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 lacked provisions for addressing financial matters and directed her to seek recourse in a civil court.

A Division Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice PB Balaji said, “Taking care of a person lying in Comatose condition is not that easy. It requires funds. Paramedical staff will have to be hired. The petition mentioned property belongs to Thiru.Sivakumar. It has necessarily to be put to use for his benefit. The State is not taking care of Thiru.Sivakumar. The appellant is shouldering the entire burden. Driving the appellant to move the civil Court, in our view, is not proper. When based on admitted and proved facts relief can be granted, there is no purpose in non-suiting the appellant on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable.”

Advocate N Vijayaraj appeared for the petitioner and Standing Counsel M Sneha appeared for the Respondents.

The Division Bench recognized the family's dire financial situation and the absence of means to care for patient, leading them to permit the sale or mortgage of his property. The Court highlighted the challenges of caring for a comatose individual, stressing the financial strain involved in hiring paramedical staff and meeting other medical needs. The Court added, “In fact, when writ petitions raising similar grounds have been entertained and reliefs were granted, the learned Judge was not right in holding that the writ petition is not maintainable.”

The ruling referenced a Kerala High Court precedent W.P.(C) No.37278 of 2018 (Shobha Balakrishnan and another -vs- State of Kerala), which established that a spouse could be appointed as a guardian under parens patriae jurisdiction in the absence of statutory remedies for comatose patients.

The Court's order included the condition that a fixed deposit of ₹50 lakh be opened in patient's name, with interest accruing for petitioner's use in covering expenses. This fixed deposit is to remain intact for patient's lifetime.

Cause Title: S. Sasikala v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Appearance:

Respondents: Advocates M.Sneha, K.Tippusultan