IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Kalyani Chattopadhayay - Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 4131 of 2021 & CM Appl. 12566 of 2021
Decided On : 07-05-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's concern for petitioner's safety. (Para 1 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. urgent need for medical treatment and safety. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 9) |
| 3. discussion of facilities and treatment options. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 12) |
| 4. directions for immediate medical care. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. final order and future hearing schedule. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--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 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 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.
3. 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 Nos. 2 and 4 to provide medical treatment to the Petitioner's son, .... (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;
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 Nos. 2 and 4 Hospital in rendering medical treatment to the Petitioner's son, .... (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 adequate police assistance to the Petitioner."
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 do
The court emphasized the need for mandatory treatment and protection for individuals with severe mental health issues under the Mental Health Care Act, aligning with the right to life and liberty.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to issue directions for urgent medical attention and placement of individuals under proper care and treatment in accordance w....
The court mandated adherence to mental health evaluation procedures for defendants deemed unfit to stand trial, emphasizing statutory compliance with mental health laws.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of referring proof of mental illness for further scrutiny to the concerned Board under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Ac....
The court established that upon administrative receipt of a mental health complaint, authorities are obligated to follow statutory mandates for patient assessment and institutionalization, ensuring p....
The Court emphasized the need for specialized care under the Mental Healthcare Act, while facilitating the petitioner's access to the 'alleged detenue' in a hospital setting.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.