Party Cannot Be Compelled To Undergo Medical Examination To Facilitate Adversary In Proving Case: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has rejected a request to conduct a medical examination of the elderly woman defendant on the ground that the Court cannot direct a party to undergo a medical examination unless the Court finds it absolutely necessary to determine the core question in controversy. The Court held that when there are serious disputes and conflicting allegations over a defendant's...
The Bombay High Court has rejected a request to conduct a medical examination of the elderly woman defendant on the ground that the Court cannot direct a party to undergo a medical examination unless the Court finds it absolutely necessary to determine the core question in controversy.
The Court held that when there are serious disputes and conflicting allegations over a defendant's mental condition and transactions involving her property, the Court should appoint a neutral officer as guardian ad litem instead of any interested party.
Justice N.J. Jamadar was deciding two interim applications in a long-standing family property dispute involving Ajay Amarchand Chhabria (Plaintiff) and his mother, PC (Defendant No.3). The Plaintiffs sought a direction for medical examination of PC and the appointment of a fit person as administrator and guardian. Simultaneously, PC's daughter Shonali Dabrai (Defendant No.5) applied for her own appointment as PC's guardian.
The Plaintiffs alleged that PC had long been suffering from Alzheimer's/dementia and was incapable of making valid property transfers, including a 2018 gift deed in favour of Defendant No.4 (PC's son) and other transactions involving HUF properties. They claimed these were executed under undue influence and without informed consent.
The Court noted that although PC could not be produced in court due to her condition, an Officer of the Court, Mrs. Bhat, Official Assignee, had submitted a report based on a home visit. The report confirmed that PC, aged about 85, was visibly sick, unresponsive, and dependent on attendants for daily activities.
“Both Plaintiffs and Defendants are, by and large, in unison on the point that PC is not in a position to take rational decisions to protect her interest,” the Court observed.
However, the Court declined the Plaintiffs' request to order a fresh medical examination of PC to retrospectively determine her mental state at the time of the impugned property transfers:
“Ordinarily, the Court cannot direct a party to undergo medical examination, unless the Court finds it absolutely necessary to determine the core question in controversy. A party cannot be compelled to subject herself to medical examination to facilitate the adversary to prove its case. If the Plaintiffs intend to bank upon the medical record to substantiate their claim that PC (D3) has been suffering from unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity of such order as to vitiate the transactions entered into by, and on her behalf, it is for the Plaintiffs to establish the said fact by leading cogent evidence.”
With regard to the request of Defendant No.5 (Shonali Dabrai) to be appointed as guardian, the Court refused, noting that her appointment is fraught with the risk of loss of objectivity in the matter of representation of PC(D3).
Accordingly, the interim application was partly allowed.
Case Title: Ajay Amarchand Chhabria & Anr. v. Amarchand Daulatram Chhabria (HUF) & Ors. [Suit No. 1151 of 2019 with Interim Application Nos. 708 of 2023 and 133 of 2024]