Constitutional Courts May Act As Parens Patriae: Gujarat HC Declares Woman As Guardian Of Husband In Coma Since 2019
The Gujarat High Court has declared a woman as a guardian of her husband who is in the state of coma since the year 2019 and also allowed her to be manager of the movable and immovable properties belonging to him.
The said woman had filed a petition seeking direction to hold and declare her as a guardian of her husband (patient) who is in a vegetative/comatose state since five years.
A Single Bench of Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen said, “… the common thread running through all the judgments is that the Constitutional Courts, may also act as parens patriae so as to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, while respectfully agreeing with the law enunciated by various High Courts, so also the nature of the doctrine of parens patriae, this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, proposes to pass the present order, giving necessary directions. … In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition, deserves to be entertained, declaring the petitioner no.1 as a guardian of the patient, i.e. Karansinh Rajusinh Dodiya, who is in the state of coma since the year 2019.”
The Bench noted that the other legal heirs of the patient i.e., petitioner’s two sons and father-in-law also filed their respective affidavits, indicating that they have no objection if the petitioner is appointed as a guardian of the patient and also to deal with his properties.
Advocate Siddharth R. Kheskani appeared for the petitioners while Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) Foram Trivedi appeared for the respondents.
In this case, it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the marriage of the petitioner woman was solemnized with the patient husband in 1996 and two sons were born out of the wedlock. In 2019, the patient was detected with dengue and was hospitalized. Owning to the weakness, he fell on the floor and as a result, he sustained brain haemorrhage with severe medical complications. Since then, he was in unconscious state and was totally bedridden, unresponsive, and unable to communicate via sign language. The petitioners were therefore, collectively taking care of him, including the medical follow-ups.
Even after passage of more than five years, there was no progress in the patient’s health condition and he was in a vegetative state and the recovery was full of uncertainty and beyond the medical scope. The petitioners were spending around Rs. 2 lakhs per month on his medical treatment and hence, they were facing unsurmountable difficulties in managing the finances for the ongoing treatment. The petitioners sought recourse of all the statutes governing the field, however, there was no legislative provision for appointment of guardian of patient lying in comatose state. Hence, they filed the petition invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court of “parens patriae” with a permission to allow the patient’s wife to act as her guardian.
The High Court in view of the above facts observed, “So far as the medical condition of the patient is concerned, the team of doctors, so also the medical treatment of the hospital where the patient, has taken the treatment, indicates that the patient, is not competent to make and execute any decision. It is also not in dispute that the patient is not in a position to take care of himself and is totally dependent on others.”
The Court, therefore, ordered the patient’s wife to be declared as his guardian and manager of the movable and immovable properties belonging to him. It further directed that the wife, having been appointed as a guardian and manager, is permitted and authorised to operate the movable and immovable properties, including the lands, bank accounts of the patient, and the partnership firms.
The Court also necessitated the following conditions –
i. The petitioner no.1 - guardian, shall act always in the best interest of the patient suffering from “comatose state” and shall be responsible for medical care and treatment.
ii. The petitioner no.1 – guardian shall file, every three months, a report with the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat, adverting to the transactions undertaken by the petitioner no.1 – guardian in respect of the movable and immovable properties as indicated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition.
iii. The Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat, shall cause a separate register to be maintained which shall set out, inter alia, the details of the proceedings, the details of the person appointed as a guardian and orders, if any, passed after the appointment of the guardian.
iv. It should be ensured that there is no misuse of the power or misappropriation of the funds and if, there is, any, or there is no requisite care and protection or support with regard to the treatment being extended to the patient, it will be open to place the matter for further consideration of this Court and to reopen and revoke the power, to take appropriate action against the petitioner no.1 – guardian.
v. It shall be the duty of the petitioner no.1 – guardian to meet the obligations/duties similar to those as described under Section 15 and to maintain and submit the accounts similar to those contained in Section 16 of the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities” Act, 1999.
vi. The petitioner no.1 – guardian, shall intimate her appointment to the public official/Social Welfare Officer or officer of the equivalent rank designated by the State Government.
vii. The transactions in respect of the movable and immovable properties of the patient by the petitioner no.1 guardian, shall be strictly in accordance with the provisions of law.
viii. In case a relative or a next friend of the patient lying in a comatose state finds that the guardian is not acting in the best interest of the patient, such person will also have the locus to approach this Court for issuance of appropriate directions and/or for removal of the guardian.
ix. The petitioner no.1 - guardian shall seek and obtain specific permission from this Court, if he/she intends to transfer the patient lying in a comatose state from the jurisdiction of this Court to another State and/or Country, whether it be for availing better treatment or otherwise.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the petition and clarified that its order shall remain operative until the patient remains in comatose state.
Cause Title- Anjuben Karansinh Dodiya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
