Karunanathan Vs Secretary to Government of India (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that retention of fixed deposits amount and not transferring in son’s account justified since doctor who examined petitioner declined to certify their sound state of mind.
Facts- The petitioners, husband and wife, hold several fixed deposits together totaling Rs. 16,76,505/-, all of which matured in 2023. The petitioners’ case is that due to their old age, they instructed their son, K.Thiagaraja Marthandan, to take the necessary steps to withdraw the amounts from the fixed deposits. However, the respondent bank refused to allow the withdrawal and insisted on a medical examination of the petitioners in the presence of the fourth respondent. The main grievance of the petitioners is that, the fixed deposit amounts were unilaterally transferred into their savings account without informing them and the respondent bank is not permitting them to withdraw the maturity amounts of the fixed deposits to meet their medical exigencies. Hence, this writ petition.
Conclusion- Held that the petitioners had two sons and a daughter. One of the petitioners, namely Karunanthan, had nominated his son, K. Rajaram Marthandan, as the nominee in a few fixed deposits. Rajaram Marthandan, subsequently, requested the bank officials to close the fixed deposits of the petitioners. Meanwhile, another son, K.Thiagarajan Marthandan, approached the respondent bank to close his parents’ savings bank accounts and transfer the funds to his own savings account. On a previous occasion, one of the petitioners’ sons had also sent a letter dated 03.09.2024, seeking the closure of the savings account. In response, the respondent bank clarified that such a request would be considered only after the appointment of a curator for the petitioners and that the closure of the savings account would proceed only by following due procedure. However, neither the petitioners nor their legal heirs have taken any action in this regard. Therefore, this Court finds no irregularity or illegality in the impugned letter issued by the fourth respondent and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
