According to this Indian Express Article, the National Trust Act is commonly referred to as the Mental Disabilities Act. News to me!
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/autistic-kids-hc-eases-norms-for-opening-bank-accounts/449239/ On 4 July 2012 19:49, Vaishnavi Jayakumar <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear Punitha & all, > > Whatever guidelines were shown to you are/were outdated. PFA most recent > master > circular<http://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_ViewMasCirculardetails.aspx?id=7373>(July > 2012) from RBI addressing banking for PwD.(Pages 34-39 are relevant > in the context of this discussion). > > The document quotes this > > (A) Under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, contracts with >> persons of unsound mind >> are void. No banker would therefore, knowingly open an account in the >> name of person of unsound >> mind, as that would easily involve him in "the difficulty of choosing >> between the risk of dishonouring >> the customers‘ cheques on the one hand and of being held to have debited >> his account without >> adequate authority on the other" (Hart's Law of Banking). > > > It's obvious that this does not address the rights of people under the > National Trust Act / Mental Health Act to operate bank accounts *except > via their respective guardians as established* under these acts (MHA is > erroneously referred to as Mental Disabilities Act in 2 places!). Offensive > language apart, challenging the withholding of this right would mean > challenging the issue of contractual capacity which is complicated in that > no-one-size-fits-all *globally*. See illustrative cases 50-4 & 50-5 on > capacity and contract at end of document > here<http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/50/banking-contracts.htm> > . > > Indian legislation so far has not addressed nuances of competence / > capacity. Please refer Bhargavi's > study<http://dnis.org/features.php?issue_id=2&volume_id=9&features_id=193> on > the widespread b/w usage of the sweeping interpretation of the term > 'unsound mind' in Indian jurisprudence. *(B, where is entire document > uploaded online?)* > > One can't totally dismiss the removal of such clauses because the option > of exercising the 'unsound mind' defence is also a right. See the recent > case of a billionaire with bipolar > disorder<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/millionaire-ed-bazinet-shopping-spree-new-york-gift-fair-mental-hospital_n_1279632.html?view=print&comm_ref=false>for > an example. > > Smitha - I couldn't find the original, but the Google OCR engine has done > a decent enough job with thge original scanned image which is attached as > an accessible pdf. > > All, I have taken the liberty of including some more voices to bring their > experience /expertise to what is a common enough pan-India pain in the ass! > > Regards, > > Vaishnavi > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mental Health Advocacy (News 'N Views) India" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/MhaNewsViewsIndia?hl=en ------------- Affiliated Groups : MENTAL HEALTH ADVOCACY INDIA [email protected] Discussions on mental health law / policy / plan monitoring / human rights etc [email protected] India-specific news and views related to mental health [email protected] Information and support to carers of people with mental health issues [email protected] Mutual support and sharing of experiential knowledge, skills and social learning amongst peers
