Whether Non-Inclusion of Mental Illnesses Under Health Insurance Violates the Mental Health Act, 2017?

Must Read

India’s International ‘Retrospective Taxation’ Regime Vis-a-Vis PCA Rulings in Vodafone and Cairn in 2020

The imposition of retrospective taxation of foreign companies doing business in India has been at the helm of controversy...

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Follow us

On June 16, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (“IRDAI”). This was after a petition filed before the Court by Gaurav Kumar Bansal, a mental health activist.

Background

In August 2018, the IRDAI had, under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, issued a circular. The circular directed insurance companies to follow the provisions of the Act. In January 2019, Gaurav Bansal applied for the Right to Information Act. The application sought details about companies complying with the circular. He also inquired whether the Insurance Regulatory had taken any action against non-compliance. The IRDAI replied denying any compliance or actions against non-compliance.

Gaurav Kumar then filed a petition before the Apex Court. It stated that insurance companies failed to provide any coverage for mental illnesses. The petition stated that there was inaction. The inaction was hampering the rehabilitation process of a thousand patients. The petition suggested a violation of the Right to Equality and non-discrimination.

Notices Issued

The Bench led by Justice R.F. Nariman issued notices to the IRDAI. Through these notices, the Court seeks to inquire about the steps taken to give effect to the provisions of the Act. The notice was issued to the Union Health Ministry in addition to the IRDAI.

The notice comes as a much-required step, according to mental experts. It is observed that due to the lockdown amid the pandemic this has led to an increase in people suffering from mental illnesses. Illnesses such as depression, anxiety, and others have seen a spike in the past few months. In addition to issuing notices, the Court also sought affidavits from the IRDAI as well as the Central Government. The affidavits have to be filed before the next date of hearing.

Violation of the Rights

The petitioner pleaded a violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination. The right to equality and non-discrimination is provided by the Constitution of India.

Article 14 of the Constitution provides the right to equality.  It states that the State shall not deny any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws. In addition to providing equality, the provision also elaborates upon discrimination. Article 14 provides for rights against discrimination on any ground.

Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

The Act provides for healthcare and services for persons with mental illnesses. It protects and promotes the rights of such persons, and deals with all matters relating to mental illnesses.  The Act lays down the responsibilities of the Government in providing healthcare and services for mental illnesses. It also provides for bodies such as the Central and State Mental Health Authority. These statutory bodies regulate and co-ordinate mental health services.

The Mental Health Care Act empowers accessibility to services to all suffering from mental illnesses. The Act ensures that such services are affordable and effective. It seeks to mandate the establishment of services in all districts of the country.

According to the petition, the lack of inclusion of mental illnesses by insurance companies is a violation of provisions of the Act. The provisions referred to are the ones provided under Section 21 of the Act. The section states that persons with mental illnesses shall be treated equally to persons with physical illnesses. It provides that treatment of mental illnesses should be at par with physical illnesses. Further, it elaborates upon facilities such as emergency services, living conditions, and others. It also provides specifications for the treatment of children.

The provision relevant to the petition lies in sub-section 4 of Section 21. Sub-section 4 states that every insurer shall ensure medical insurance for the treatment of mental illnesses. It also states that the insurance shall be available on the same basis as is available for physical illnesses. The provision discourages discrimination against persons with mental illnesses.

Conclusion

With the current lockdown imposed as a result of the pandemic, there has been a steady increase in the concerns about mental health. The concern also extends to illnesses and their treatment.  Over the past few years, various steps taken by the government and its regulatory bodies. However, there has been a failure to ensure that mental illnesses are treated at par. The filing of such petitions seeks to hold the governments and authorities accountable for the lack of improvement in the status quo.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -