Courts to take necessary steps to protect violent patients under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: Delhi High Court

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 7th May 2021 W.P.(C) 4131 2021 & CM APPL.12566 2021 KALYANI CHATTOPADHAYAY Through: Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Sunanda Tulsyan Advocates.Petitioner GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava ASC Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr. Kautilya Birat R 2 AIIMS. Mr. Tushar Sannu Standing Counsel IHBAS with Ms. Ankita Bhadouriya and Mr. Shubham Jain Advocates with Dr. Amit Khanna IHBAS in person. Mr. Rajesh Mahna Standing Counsel for VIMHANS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh J.1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking directions to be issued to AIIMS SHO Chitranjan Park and the IHBASwho are arrayed as Respondent Nos. 2 4. The case of the Petitioner is that her son who is now 32 years of age had started showing abnormal behaviour since he was 17 years of age. In 2006 he was diagnosed at AIIMS with `Bipolar disorder and Psychosis’. He was W.P.(C) 4131 2021 being taken repeatedly to doctors and hospitals and since 2006 he was prescribed medications by doctors at AIIMS. In 2019 his symptoms aggravated and he was again taken to AIIMS. He was then diagnosed with Schizophrenia’. Owing to the son’s mental condition he would get aggressive towards his parents and also exhibit violent behaviour. He is stated to have severely injured them on some occasions. In July 2020 the Petitioner’s husband had to get a hip surgery in 2020 owing to the son’s violent behaviour. In August 2020 the Petitioner was assaulted by her son. His behaviour was reported by the Petitioner to the SHO of the concerned area. The Petitioner also filed a complaint under Sections 101 and 102 of the Mental Health Care Act 2017 as also under Section 156(3) of the CrPC which was dismissed on 16th January 2021. A revision petition was preferred challenging the said order which was also dismissed on 23rd January 2021. In view of the mental condition of her son who is 32 years of age the Petitioner wishes that the name of her son be not revealed in the order today. The reliefs sought in the present petition are: a) Issue a Writ Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus and or a Writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus calling for the records of the case and after examining the legality and validity of the same direct the Respondent No. s 2 and 4 to provide medical Petitioner s son …. Son Of Shri Sameer Chattopadhayay Resident of I 1600 Chitranjan Park New Delhi 110019 in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution of India W.P.(C) 4131 2021 b) Issue a Writ Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus and or a Writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus calling for the records of the case and after examining the legality and validity of the same direct the Respondent No.3 to provide adequate police protection assistance to the Doctors at the Respondent No. s 2 and 4 Hospital in rendering medical treatment to the Petitioner s son …. Son Of Shri Sameer Chattopadhayay Resident of I 1600 Chitranjan Park New Delhi 110019 c) Issue a Writ Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus and or a Writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus calling for the records of the case and after examining the legality and validity of the same direct the Respondent No.3 to provide 4. This Court had vide order dated 26th March 2021 sought a report from AIIMS where he was examined in February 2021. The report has been received from AIIMS. The report of AIIMS dated 9th April 2021 reads: “ ...…(Petitioner’s son) 32 years old male came to the Emergency Services AIIMS New Delhi on 2nd February 2021 at 5:46PM. He was examined by a Senior Resident in Psychiatry and the case was discussed with a Professor of Psychiatry. There was history of recent violent behaviour. He was not cooperative and appeared aggressive. A provisional diagnosis of Schizophrenia was made. Admission to Psychiatry Ward was considered for which his COVID testing was done. He was given W.P.(C) 4131 2021 injection Haloperidol + Phenargan. While the COVID report was awaited he was kept in emergency. Next day early morning he ran away from the emergency and hence could not be admitted. His COVID report came negative later.” From the above report it is clear that the Petitioner has been again diagnosed with “Schizophrenia” and was admitted in the Psychiatry Ward of AIIMS. He was administered medicines and kept in the emergency. However he left the Emergency without an intimation or information. Thereafter vide order dated 13th April 2021 this court had directed ld. Counsels for the Petitioner and Respondents to place on record a list of facilities in and around Delhi which provide care and treatment to patients of Schizophrenia. On the last date of hearing i.e. 27th April 2021 the list of the said facilities was provided to the Court. 7. The Petitioner herself had expressed certain reservations about placing her son at Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences hereinafter “IHBAS”) and hence the Court had considered placing the Petitioner’s son in Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health Neuro & Allied SciencesNehru Nagar New Delhi. 8. However today Mr. Manha ld. Counsel appearing for VIMHANS submits that the facility at VIMHANS is not operational and doctors may not be available at VIMHANS due to the COVID 19 condition. 9. At the beginning of the hearing today Mr. Sachar ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has informed the Court that the Petitioner has again been subjected to violent physical behaviour by her son and she is currently admitted in the AIIMS Trauma Centre. 10. From the overall facts and the circumstances emerging in the present W.P.(C) 4131 2021 case it appears that there is an urgent need to ensure that the safety of the Petitioner and also to safeguard them. The son of the Petitioner also requires urgent medical attention. For the said purpose the son of the Petitioner also needs to be placed under proper care and treatment in order to ensure that he does not cause any further physical or mental damage to either of his parents and also to ensure that his own mental condition improves. This Court is convinced that the son of the Petitioner is unable to take care of himself. In the previous hearings the Petitioner herself had appeared and also made submissions. Both the Petitioner and her husband are senior citizens. Their safety and security is also of concern to the Court. 11. Mr. Tushar Sanu ld. counsel for IHBAS along with Dr. Amit Khanna from IHBAS have joined the proceedings today. They submit that so long as the patient is brought to their facility the IHBAS facility would take care of him. 12. The Court has been informed by ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner’s son had tested positive for COVID 19 about 17 days ago however he submits that there ought not be any apprehension qua the same as on today since the quarantine isolation period of the Petitioner’s son has 13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances the following already passed. directions are issued: 1) The Delhi Police which is represented by Mr. Anupam Srivastava ld. Counsel shall ensure that the Petitioner’s son is taken to IHBAS facility and placed under their care today itself under police protection in terms of section 100 of the Mental Healthcare Act 2017. All the officers who are W.P.(C) 4131 2021 facilitating the same shall ensure that adequate protective measures in terms of wearing of masks etc. are taken. 2) Upon the Petitioner’s son reaching the IHBAS facility the required protocols in respect of his physical and mental conditions shall be followed. COVID 19 testing shall also be conducted on him. Further if the RT PCR test is conducted upon the Petitioner’s son to determine the same until the results come out he shall be kept in the isolation ward. 3) The Petitioner’s son shall remain in care and treatment of IHBAS which shall file a report before this Court at least two days before the next date of hearing. 4) If any further directions are required parties are permitted to approach mention the same before this Court. 14. The medical reports which are available and are a part of the record in respect of the Petitioner’s son shall be shared with Dr. Amit Khanna of IHBAS in order to assist him in the care and treatment of the patient. 15. A digitally signed copy of today’s order which shall be uploaded on the website shall be used for complying with the directions mentioned above. 16. List on 21st May 2021. PRATHIBA M. SINGH MAY 7 2021 dk Ak W.P.(C) 4131 2021 

Summary: The Mental Healthcare Act had been enacted so as to promote and protect the full rights of persons suffering from mental illness. The present petition of Kalyani Chattopadhayay v Govt. of NCT Delhi [W.P.(C) 4131/2021] pivoted around the issue of the violent acts by the petitioner’s son diagnosed with schizophrenia. The matter was adjudicated by the bench of Pratibha M. Singh J.  The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions to be issued to AIIMS, SHO – Chitranjan Park and the IHBAS (`Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences) who are arrayed as respondent Nos. 2-4. The case of the Petitioner is that her son who is now 32 years of age had started showing abnormal behaviour since he was 17 years of age. In 2006 he was diagnosed at AIIMS with `Bipolar disorder and Psychosis’. He was being taken repeatedly to doctors and hospitals and since 2006 he was prescribed medications by doctors at AIIMS. In 2019 his symptoms aggravated, and he was again taken to AIIMS. He was then diagnosed with `Schizophrenia’. Owing to the son’s mental condition, he would get aggressive towards his parents and also exhibit violent behaviour. He is stated to have severely injured them on some occasion. The Petitioner also filed a complaint under Sections 101 and 102 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 as also under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, which was dismissed however. It was prayed by the petitioners that examining the legality and validity of the same direct the Respondent No. ‘s 2 and 4 to provide medical treatment to the Petitioner’s son. Further, it was also pleaded to provide adequate police protection/assistance to the doctors at the Respondent No. ‘s 2 and 4 hospital in rendering medical treatment to the Petitioner’s son. The court preliminary required an examination report by AIIMS to assess the condition of the petitioner’s son wherein it was recorded that there was history of recent violent behaviour. He was not cooperative and appeared aggressive. A provisional diagnosis of schizophrenia was made. Thus it was clear that the Petitioner has been again diagnosed with schizophrenia and was admitted in the Psychiatry Ward of AIIMS. He was administered medicines and kept in the emergency. However, he left the Emergency without an intimation or information. The bench noted there was an urgent need to ensure that the safety of the Petitioner and also to safeguard them. The son of the Petitioner also required urgent medical attention. For the said purpose, the son of the Petitioner needed to be placed under proper care and treatment, in order to ensure that he does not cause any further physical or mental damage to either of his parents, and also to ensure that his own mental condition improves. The court was convinced that the son of the petitioner was unable to take care of himself. In the previous hearings, the petitioner herself had appeared and also made submissions. Both the petitioner and her husband are senior citizens. Their safety and security was of concern to the court.