The court found that despite procedural non-compliance under the Mental Health Act, the defendants acted in good faith, lacking mala fides in the admission of the plaintiff for psychiatric treatment.

JUDGMENT

Dated : 21^st August, 2025

The 1^st defendant in O.S. 147/2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha, is the appellant in RFA 351/2011. The 2^nd defendant in the above suit is the appellant in RFA 463/2011. Defendants 3 to 6 in the suit are the appellants in RFA 506/2011. (For the purpose of convenience the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.)

2. The 3^rd defendant in the suit is the husband of the plaintiff and the 4^th defendant is her son. The 5^th defendant is the daughter-in-law and 6^th defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. The 7^th defendant is the father-in-law of the 4^th defendant. The plaintiff is an old lady who filed the suit claiming damages alleging that, at the instance of defendants 3 to 6 she was illegally detained in the 1^st defendant/hospital and given psychiatric treatment by the 2^nd defendant/doctor, though she was not at all suffering from any such ailments. As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff was residing alone for the last several years. While so, on 11.6.2005, defendants 3 to 7 trespassed into her residence, forcefully tied her hands backwards, dragged her into a car and taken her to the 1^st defendant/hospital and admitted there. The 2^nd defendant started medical treatment alleging mental illness to her, at the request of the other defendants and administered strong anti- psychotropic drugs. The plaintiff was very confident and self content of speech and her manners, conduct and behaviour were like a normal prudent person and in spite of that, she was admitted in the 1^st defendant/hospital without complying the mandatory provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987 . At the time of her admission in the said hospital, she was cent percent normal and a prudent person and never behaved like a mentally disordered person. The plaintiff also expressed her unwillingness to be admitted in the mental hospital and even then, in violation of Section 19 of the Mental Health Act she was admitted and treated by giving strong medicines. In the above circumstances, her sister preferred a habeas corpus petition before the High Court as W.P.(Crl).157/2005 in which an Advocate Commissioner was deputed by the High Court. The Advocate Commissioner, after visiting the plaintiff, filed a report and on the basis of the report, the High Court ordered to release her. According to the plaintiff, defendants 3 and 4 wanted to grab her property and when she was not amenable for the demands, they have forcefully admitted her in the mental hospital, with the help of the other defendants. Therefore, she filed the suit seeking damages from the defendants.

3. The defendants filed written statement denying the allegations in the plaint. According to defendants 1 and 2, when defendants 3 to 6 brought the plaintiff in the hospital, the plaintiff was suspicious, easily irritable, abusive, violent, diminished sleep, quarrels with family and neighbours and litigants. As per the information collected by Mrs.Bindu, a qualified psychiatrist, the plaintiff was living alone for the past 12 years and shows abnormality for 25 years. Thereafter, the plaintiff was referred to the 2^nd defendant who in turn admitted her as an inpatient as detailed tests were needed. After admission, the plaintiff was further examined by a clinical psychologist and various psychological tests were conducted and delusional disorder was diagnosed. The allegation that the defendants forcefully confined the plaintiff in the hospital and administered anti- psychotropic drugs etc., were denied. It is also contended that the plaintiff never expressed her un