Calcutta High Court says law needed to protect patients in vegetative state and their property

The Calcutta High Court recently urged the Central and the State governments to consider bringing in a law to deal with the appointment of guardians to protect comatose patients or people in a vegetative state and their property [Vishal Osatwal vs State of West Bengal]..While appointing a son as the guardian of his father who was in a comatose condition, Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya observed that there appeared to be gap in the law on this issue.."I part with the expectation that the Legislatures – both the Union and/or the States - shall immediately look into the issue of legislative vacuum in the field, repeatedly being pointed out by several High Courts, and enact an appropriate statute and/or pass proper guidelines for the purpose of looking after the person and property of comatose persons and the modalities regarding the same," the judge said..There is no statute in India that provides for the appointment of a guardian to take care of comatose persons or persons in a vegetative state, the Court noted. "None of the available statutes are relevant in such cases. The statutes relating to mental health do not apply, since those deal with mentally ill persons having mental disorder or retardation of sorts, but not persons who are in an inert condition, incapable of interacting meaningfully with their environment," the judge added..The Court further observed that for people in a comatose state, life passes by without registering any chord. The judge raised concern that if such persons are left unattended or uncared for medically and socially, such a person would be incapable of surviving.While so, he pointed out that existing laws on related issues such as the Guardians and Wards Act and specific laws concerning persons with autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation or multiple psychological disabilities do not accommodate comatose patients. Rather, the Court acknowledged that the concept of parens patriae (where the court or another authority adopts the role of a guardian) is generally invoked to intervene in such cases. .The Court made the observation while deciding on a plea by a man (petitioner) who had sought to be appointed the guardian for his bedridden father. The Court was told that the father had been in a comatose condition since 2017.The Court was informed that the father's treatment required immense expenses and that for the past eight years, the same was being looked after by his family (the patient's son and wife) using their family savings. However, they pleaded that the financial burden had become increasingly overwhelming and unless the family is given access to the father's funds and his property, it would be extremely difficult to meet the mounting expenses for the treatment..The Court observed that there was an urgent need to allow the petitioner to operate the properties of his father to fund the required medical facilities and expert care. The bench further noted that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live with dignity."In order to confer such right on the patient, it is required that his resources are appropriately channelized for his own treatment and well-being," the Court added. The Court proceeded to appoint the son as his father's guardian and permitted him to make optimum use of the father's movable and immovable properties. The petitioner (son) was, however, directed to give timely reports on the transactions he would make..Advocates Siddhartha Lahiri, Aritra Chakraborty and Debraj Dutta appeared for the petitioner (son).Advocate Tuli Sinha represented the State..[Read Judgment]