The Calcutta High Court has ordered the police-assisted transfer of a physically challenged woman from a private hospital back to her matrimonial home, terming her husband’s refusal to take her back a “ploy” to shirk his moral duties and responsibilities.
A division bench comprising Justices Shampa Sarkar and Ajay Kumar Gupta observed that a husband cannot abandon his physically incapacitated wife under the guise of medical helplessness. The court rejected the husband’s appeal against a trial court order directing him to take her home, highlighting that medical experts had declared her stable, conscious, and fit for home care.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a petition filed by Apollo Multispeciality Hospitals, raising concerns over a growing and troubling trend of families abandoning recovered or stable patients in private medical facilities.
According to the hospital, the woman was admitted to its emergency department on September 15, 2021, following an accident. She remained hospitalized for nearly four years, during which the hospital authorities provided her with continuous medical care. The hospital asserted that its legal intervention was driven by deep anxiety for the patient’s well-being rather than just the recovery of unpaid medical bills, which remained outstanding.
A trial court had previously directed the husband to get his wife discharged and bring her back to their residence within a week of the order. The trial court also ruled that the hospital bills should not be recovered from the husband but should instead be claimed through the insurance company if legally permissible. Furthermore, the trial court allowed for the woman to be moved to a government hospital for further treatment if required.
However, the husband refused to abide by these directions, prompting the appeal before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the appellant husband, Advocate Naba Kumar Das argued that the trial court had carved out a “third case” by ordering his client to take his wife home and ensure her treatment at a government facility. He argued that the hospital’s original writ petition sought state guidelines to address the issue of patients overstaying in private hospitals, and had not explicitly prayed for relief against the husband.
Advocate Das further contended that the state bears the fundamental responsibility toward sick, incapacitated, and handicapped citizens. He argued that the government should formulate schemes to rehabilitate such individuals in state-run shelter homes, stating that the husband wanted the state to house his wife in a shelter home. The husband also maintained that his wife was in a vegetative state and could not be adequately cared for at home.
Representing Apollo Multispeciality Hospitals, Senior Advocate Jishnu Choudhury countered that private hospitals frequently encounter situations where families refuse to take patients back, either because they view the patient as a burden or to avoid settling medical bills. He argued that these circumstances forced the hospital to seek a directive from the state government to establish a robust regulatory mechanism to deal with patient abandonment, emphasizing that protecting citizens is ultimately a duty of the state.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court strongly criticized the husband’s conduct and dismissed his claims that his wife was in a vegetative state, pointing to a report submitted by the medical board. The medical report clarified that the woman was conscious, wheelchair-bound, capable of feeding herself, and deemed fit for discharge to receive care at home.
Rejecting the husband’s arguments, the bench stated:
“The appeal is nothing but a ploy of the husband to avoid any responsibility towards his disabled wife. He wants to abandon her. He refuses to take her home on the grounds that it would be difficult to nurse her.”
The division bench expressed deep concern over the husband’s attempt to evade his marital obligations, noting:
“We fail to understand how the husband could ‘shirk the responsibilities’ towards his wife by refusing to take her home, especially when medical experts found that she was stable, conscious and fit for home care.”
The court further emphasized that the woman “has a right to live in the house.” The judges also took into account the welfare of the couple’s 17-year-old child, noting that the teenager would be unjustly deprived of his mother’s company and presence if she were to be abandoned in a shelter home.
Addressing the financial aspect, the High Court noted that the writ court had already safeguarded the family by directing that the unpaid hospital bills be recovered directly from the insurance company, in accordance with the law.
The Decision of the Court
To ensure the safety and rehabilitation of the woman, the Calcutta High Court issued a series of comprehensive directives:
- Police-Assisted Transfer: The court ordered the police authorities to assist in safely transferring the woman from Apollo Multispeciality Hospitals back to her matrimonial home. The police were also directed to maintain regular vigil to ensure her safety, security, and well-being at the house.
- Medical Monitoring: Apollo Multispeciality Hospitals was directed to depute a paramedic or nurse to visit the woman’s home twice every week to monitor her vitals and general physical condition.
- Emergency Medical Provision: The court clarified that if the wife’s physical condition deteriorates and she requires emergency hospitalization in the future, she is to be shifted to a designated government hospital for treatment as an indoor patient, free of cost.
- Legal and Social Support: The Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) was directed to provide all necessary protection, support, and legal aid to the wife as required.
- Periodic Inspection: The DLSA Secretary was further instructed to conduct periodic visits to the matrimonial home to monitor the living conditions and ensure the woman remains secure and well-treated.
