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

Must Read

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

The Competition Law Regime and Re-Tooling Patent Pools In India

The adversity to acquire licenses of various patented technologies can thwart the commercialization as well as the development of...

Solving Healthcare Issues Using Blockchain Technology

In troubled times that follow a pandemic, almost all nations are forced to take stock of the gaps present...

How Artificial Intelligence is Transforming the Legal Profession

In recent times, we have seen the introduction of artificial intelligence on a small yet phenomenally successful scale in...

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.


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.


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.


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

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -