The Jharkhand High Court ruled that mental health treatment expenses must be reimbursed just like physical illness expenses. It directed Bharat Coking Coal Limited to reimburse a retired executive for his wife’s psychiatric treatment, emphasizing that health insurance cannot exclude mental illness. Citing the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the Court declared that any policy denying such coverage is invalid.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court gave an important decision, stating that no one can be denied reimbursement for the money spent on mental health treatment.
Justice Ananda Sen directed Bharat Coking Coal Limited, which is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, to reimburse the amount spent by a retired executive of the company on his wife’s psychiatric treatment.
“From Section 21 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017…I come to the conclusion that there cannot be any discrimination in respect of reimbursement of expenses made by a person suffering from physical illness and mental illness,”
-the Court held.
The Court made it clear that according to the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, there should not be any discrimination between a person who has a mental illness and a person who has any other physical illness.
“In one line it can be summarized that there cannot be any difference so far as treatment and giving other facilities, between a mentally ill person or a physically ill person. Both of them are kept on the same pedestal so far as treatment is concerned without any discrimination.”
The Court specifically referred to Section 21(4) of the Act, which says that every insurance company must provide medical insurance for mental illness treatment in the same way as it does for physical illnesses.
“The aforesaid statutory dictate mandates all the health insurers to make provision for treating mental illness in a similar manner as is done in respect of persons with physical illness. This is also an equality clause, which eliminates discrimination when it comes to medical insurance or reimbursement for treatment of mental illness. By virtue of this statutory provision, there cannot be any exclusion clause to exclude reimbursement of expenses incurred for treating mental ailment or psychiatric treatment in any health insurance policy,”
-the Court said.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Rules Public Humiliation of Husband by Wife as Mental Cruelty
The Court gave this decision after carefully looking at the medical insurance scheme of Coal India Limited, called the Contributory Post Retirement Medicare Scheme for Executives of CIL & its Subsidiaries (CPRMS), and checking whether it follows the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
The Court found that Clause 6.3(i) of the CPRMS, which does not allow reimbursement for psychiatric treatment expenses, directly goes against the Mental Healthcare Act. The Court said that this kind of discrimination is not based on any reasonable classification.
“Coal India Limited and its subsidiary companies are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Their action or any resolution, which they adopt cannot be contrary to the provisions of any Statute promulgated by the legislatures, herein the Parliament of India. If any resolution or a part of the resolution, adopted by the Board, is in conflict with any parliamentary legislation, that part of the resolution will become null and void and the same cannot be given effect to,”
-it added.
ALSO READ: Chhattisgarh HC: Husband’s Excessive Drinking a Mental Cruelty to Wife and Family
The Court also noted that the CPRMS was made in 2008, much before the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 was passed. Therefore, the Court held,
“I hold and declare that after promulgation of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and especially taking into consideration Section 21(4) of the Act, exclusion of psychiatric treatment in CPRMS is rendered nugatory.”
The Court concluded that a person getting psychiatric treatment should get the same benefits as a person suffering from physical illness and allowed the petition.
Advocate Gyan Ranjan represented the petitioner.
Advocate Swati Shalini represented the State.
CASE TITLE:
Santosh Kumar Verma v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and Others.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
