Elderly Woman Abandoned in Hospital: Bombay HC Steps In With Strict Directions

The Bombay High Court has held that a senior citizen abandoned by her son is entitled to immediate protection of her life, health and property, directing the State to take over her medical care if required and restraining the son from dealing with her assets.

The Court said it was primarily concerned with “the well being and medical needs of the patient and her right to a dignified and healthy life.”

A Division Bench of Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale and Justice A. S. Gadkari passed the order while hearing a petition filed by the Bandra Holy Family Hospital Society and its hospital, which had been treating the patient since August 2025.

The Bench noted that despite raising allegations of medical negligence, the patient’s son had neither cleared the outstanding hospital dues nor sought discharge, and had instead refused to take the patient home. The Court observed that his conduct amounted to prima facie neglect and abandonment.

The Bench remarked that “the conduct of the Respondent No. 3 leaves us to believe that a prima facie case of exposure and abandonment has been made out.” It added that if the State is forced to take over the patient’s care, the son’s actions would automatically fall within Sections 24 and 25 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The Court relied extensively on statutory protections available to senior citizens. It noted that the Maintenance Tribunal under the Welfare Act has wide powers to secure and protect the property of abandoned or neglected parents, including issuing injunctions, restraint orders and eviction directions. The Bench held that these powers must be interpreted liberally as the legislation is a welfare enactment intended to provide effective and inexpensive remedies for the elderly.

The judges observed that Section 23(2) of the Act, which deals with the enforcement of the right to receive maintenance, necessarily includes the power to protect the senior citizen’s estate and ensure that their property is available for their medical and financial needs. It said that any restrictive interpretation would defeat the object of the statute.

The Court also referred to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, observing that given the patient’s medical condition, there was a possible view that she could be considered a person with disability under Section 2(s). The Bench noted that inhuman and degrading treatment constitutes neglect and abandonment and that the Government is duty bound under the Disabilities Act to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to courts, financial rights and full legal capacity.

Although the applicability of the Disabilities Act was considered debatable in this case, the Court directed the authorities to examine it.

The Court further noted the provisions of the Maharashtra Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions Act, 2010, which provides recourse against acts of violence against medical staff and institutions. While the Bench clarified that it was not deciding issues of medical negligence or non-payment of bills, it left it open to the parties to pursue remedies under the Act if advised.

On the facts, the Court recorded that the patient had been admitted by her son in a severely weak and malnourished condition. The hospital stated that while the son had initially paid Rs. 4,25,000, he had failed to pay the remaining outstanding amount of approximately Rs. 16,00,000.

The hospital also alleged that he was uncooperative, avoided communication with the treating staff and raised baseless allegations of medical negligence to avoid payment. Despite being advised to shift the patient to a hospital of his choice if he distrusted the treatment, the son did not take discharge and continued to dispute the hospital’s line of treatment.

Police records placed before the Court showed that multiple attempts were made by the authorities to contact him for inquiry, but he remained unavailable on several occasions and failed to respond to notices.

The Court found that the patient’s property, including her Bandra flat, required urgent protection, especially because the son had not been attending to her needs. It held that protective orders to preserve a senior citizen’s property were essential to ensure their economic stability and guarantee full enjoyment of their fundamental right to life and health.

As a result, the Bench directed the son to shift the patient to Bhabha Hospital’s ICU by 18.11.2025 under his supervision and at his cost. It warned that if he failed to comply, the State would take charge, shift her under medical supervision and bear all expenses. The State was directed to medically examine the patient before shifting her and ensure adequate medical care thereafter.

The Court additionally restrained the son from dealing with any movable or immovable property of the patient, including the Bandra flat, without its permission. It directed him to file an affidavit detailing all her assets within one week.

An amount of Rs. 1,00,000 earlier deposited by the son pursuant to an earlier order was directed to be transferred to the Maintenance Tribunal, which would pass further directions in accordance with law.

The Bench also directed the authorities to take steps under Sections 5 and 23 of the Welfare Act to protect the patient’s property and interests.

The petitioners were granted liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for recovery of their monetary claims. The matter has been posted for reporting compliance.

Case Title: The Bandra Holy Family Hospital Society & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 13.11.2025

Bench: Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale and Justice A. S. Gadkari