SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Shikha Nischal - Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3190 of 2021
Decided On : 19-04-2021




Insurance policies must not discriminate against mental illnesses under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017; all insurers are required to cover mental health on the same basis as physical health.

Headnote:(A) Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 - Sections 21(1)(a), 21(4) - Health insurance policy - Denial of claim for reimbursement of treatment expenses related to mental illness - Policy exclusions for psychiatric disorders challenged under MHA, 2017 - Asserts right to equality and non-discrimination in insurance coverage. (Paras 3, 21, 27)

(B) Insurance Regulatory Authority of India - Duty to ensure compliance of insurance products with the provisions of the MHA, 2017 - Insurance companies cannot discriminate between mental and physical illnesses in coverage. (Paras 17, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having purchased a health insurance policy, sought reimbursement for hospitalization expenses due to a mental illness, which was denied based on an exclusion clause in the policy. Following a directive from the IRDAI, the insurer eventually paid the claim amount, while issues of compliance with MHA, 2017 were raised.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the insurer to comply with Section 21(4) of the MHA, 2017, confirming that mental illnesses must be treated on par with physical illnesses regarding insurance coverage, noting the discriminatory nature of the insurer's policy.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the applicability of MHA, 2017 in the petitioner’s claim and whether the policy exclusion violated the right to equality.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the MHA, 2017 mandates equal treatment for mental health coverage, arguing that the insurer’s exclusion clause was contrary to law and that mental health must not be treated differently from physical health.

Result: The petition was allowed, with directions for reimbursement and costs awarded to the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. insurance coverage for mental illness. (Para 2 , 3)
2. claim rejection based on policy exclusions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. reliefs sought by the petitioner. (Para 7 , 8)
4. arguments for insurance coverage compliance. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. irdai's obligation to enforce insurance regulations. (Para 13)
6. historical context of mental health legislation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
7. irdai's regulatory duties and powers. (Para 18 , 19)
8. legal importance of non-discrimination in insurance. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
9. necessity for mental health coverage. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
10. non-implementation of mha provisions. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
11. need for compliance with mha provisions. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
12. court's directive on costs and compliance. (Para 32)
13. final order on mental illness discrimination. (Para 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through Video Conferencing.

2. Can mental illness be treated differently from physical illness for medical insurance purposes, is the question that arises in the present petition.

3. The petition raises an important issue relating to insurance coverage for mental illnesses and the provision of non-discrimination qua such illnesses as enshrined in Sections 21 (1)(a) and 21(4) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (hereinafter, `MHA, 2017').

4. The Petitioner in the present case regularly obtained health insurance policies from Respondent No. 1 - M/s National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter, `NICL'), since 2016. The last policy was purchased by her on 29th May, 2020, named as `National Mediclaim Policy' (hereinafter, `Healthcare Policy'). The said Healthcare Policy is valid for a period of one year 28th May, 2021. The sum insured was Rs. 3,95,000/-.

5. In June, 2020, the Petitioner developed a certain illness for which she obtained treatment from Sukoon Hospital, Gurugram. She was admitted in the hospital on 28th June, 2020 and was discharged on 28th July, 2020, after a month of treatment. The total expenses incurred by her was Rs. 5,54,636/- for the said period of hospitalization. She was diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder - a mental illness. The Petitioner then applied for reimbursement of the expenses incurred in her treatment, amounting to Rs. 5,54,636/-, from NICL in terms of Clause 1.1 of the Healthcare Policy. As per the Petitioner, she is entitled to reimbursement in terms of Clause 1.1 of the Healthcare Policy which provides for insurance policy coverage for medical expenses incurred for hospitalization. The clause reads as under:

    "... The policy covers medical expenses for 30 (thirty) days of pre hospitalization, 60 (sixty) days of post hospitalization, 140+ day care procedures/surgeries, Ayurveda and homeopathy treatment, organ donor's medical expenses, maternity, hospital cash ambulance, air ambulance, medical emergency reunion, vaccination for children and medical second opinion."

6. She, however, received a letter dated 1st September, 2020 from NICL rejecting her claim, relying upon Clause 4.10 of the Healthcare Policy. The said Clause specifies the exclusions for coverage, in respect of which the insurance company would not be liable to make payments under the Healthcare Policy. Clause 4.10 reads as under:

    "4 - Exclusions: The company shall not be liable to make any payment under the policy, in respect of any expenses incurred in connection with or in respect of-

    ...

    4.10 - Psychiatric disorder, intentional self-inflicted injury: Treatment for all psychiatric and psychosomatic disorders/diseases, intentional self inflicted injury, attempted suicide"

7. She then filed a complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman relying upon the provisions of MHA, 2017. The Insurance Ombudsman however, observed that the claim of the Petitioner would have to be settled in terms of the Clauses of the Healthcare Policy, and rejected the claim of the Petitioner.

8. The reliefs thus, prayed for in this petition are as under:

    "a) Direct

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top