The Allahabad High Court issued an order granting permission for the sale of a piece of land to enable a wife to cover medical expenses incurred for the treatment of her comatose husband. This ruling was grounded in the High Court's invocation of 'Parens Patriae' jurisdiction, ensuring the patient's best interests were prioritized.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner's husband purchased a piece of land through a registered sale deed in 2011. He was involved in an accident that resulted in a serious head injury, which consequently put him in a comatose state since then. The petitioner, who hails from an average-income background had been burdened with significant medical expenses arising from her husband's condition and she was also taking care of their minor son. The petitioner approached the court to seek permission to sell the property that her husband had purchased to generate funds to cover the medical expenses required for her husband's treatment.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that no legislation in India provides for the appointment of a guardian for a person in a comatose state, unlike legislation for the appointment of a guardian for minors and persons with other disabilities.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court, while deliberating on this complex case, considered the doctrine of 'Parens Patriae,' which has been invoked in certain exceptional situations by constitutional courts in India. The essence of 'Parens Patriae' is to prioritize the welfare and well-being of the individual in question, treating it as a paramount concern.
In this context, the High Court turned to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union Of India[1]’ This landmark case provided critical insights into the jurisdiction of 'Parens Patriae,' especially concerning individuals with specific medical conditions. The Supreme Court addressed the delicate distinction between a person in a permanent vegetative state and one in a minimal conscious state.
The Rights of People with Disabilities Act, 2016, was also considered by the High Court to ascertain the legal definition of persons with disabilities. According to Section 2(s) of this Act, persons with disabilities are defined as those who can interact, albeit not in a fully coherent manner.
However, the Court recognized that in cases involving individuals in a comatose state, interaction was absent, and such victims would not respond to any stimuli. Therefore, the provisions of the Act defining persons with disabilities could not be directly applied in these situations.
Given the urgency of the situation and the critical need for immediate treatment and support for the petitioner's husband, who was in a comatose state, the Court found it necessary to invoke its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Decision of the Court:
The High Court established guidelines and norms for the appointment of the petitioner as the guardian of her husband. These guidelines granted her authority over his medical treatment, nursing care, and welfare. The petitioner also received the power to manage all assets and properties belonging to her husband and to operate his bank accounts. Importantly, the Court permitted the sale of the land acquired in question to generate funds for his medical expenses. The proceeds from the sale were to be deposited with the Registrar General of the Court, with instructions to invest the amount in a fixed deposit, ensuring maximum interest. The Court also directed the bank to remit a monthly sum of Rs. 50,000 to an account to cover her husband's medical costs.
Case Title: Pooja Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar
Case No.: Writ - C No. - 26406 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Vishal Pandey and Ashvanee Kumar Srivastav
Advocate for the Respondent: Paras Nath Rai
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
[1] 011 Latest Caselaw 191 SC
Picture Source :
