The Jharkhand High Court recently ruled that a person cannot be denied reimbursement for expenses incurred for mental health treatment [Santosh Kumar Verma v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and Others]..Justice Ananda Sen directed Bharat Coking Coal Limited, 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 observed that the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 make it clear that that there cannot be any discrimination between a person suffering from mental illness and a person suffering from 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.".In particular, the Court highlighted Section 21(4) of the Act, which provides that every insurer shall make provision for medical insurance for treatment of mental illness on the same basis as physical illness.“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..The Court passed the order after examining Coal India Limited's medical insurance scheme called Contributory Post Retirement Medicare Scheme for Executives of CIL & its Subsidiaries (CPRMS), in light of the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. It found Clause 6.3(i) of the CPRMS, which denies reimbursement of any expenses incurred for psychiatric treatment, to be directly in conflict with various provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act. This discrimination made in the CPRMS is not based on any intelligible differentia, it held.“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..The Court noted that the CPRMS was adopted in 2008, much prior to enactment of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. It thus 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."Concluding that a patient receiving psychiatric treatment has to get the same benefit as a person suffering from physical illness, the Court allowed the petition..Advocate Gyan Ranjan represented the petitioner.Advocate Swati Shalini represented the State..[Read Judgment]
