Mental Healthcare Act: Delhi HC Seeks Status Reports On Plea Alleging Lack Of Grievance Redressal Bodies

first_imgNews UpdatesMental Healthcare Act: Delhi HC Seeks Status Reports On Plea Alleging Lack Of Grievance Redressal Bodies Shreya Agarwal10 April 2021 4:21 AMShare This – xA single judge bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh of the Delhi High Court has sought status reports on the current functioning of the Mental Health Review Board and the State Mental Health Authority on a plea by a 19-year old man alleging that there was no grievance redressal mechanism in Delhi under the Mental Health Care Act, 2017.The 19-year old has moved Court seeking directions to the resp…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginA single judge bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh of the Delhi High Court has sought status reports on the current functioning of the Mental Health Review Board and the State Mental Health Authority on a plea by a 19-year old man alleging that there was no grievance redressal mechanism in Delhi under the Mental Health Care Act, 2017.The 19-year old has moved Court seeking directions to the resp 1 to reconstitute the State Mental Health Authority as per the specific requirements of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 read with the Mental Healthcare (State Mental Health Authority) Rules, 2018. He has also sought directions for the setting up of Mental Health Review Boards as provided under the Act.The 19 year old has stated in his petition that he had approached a psychiatrist at the Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health (Neuro & Allied Sciences) [VIMHANS], after being diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder in 2016, during the course of which he revealed to his psychiatrist that he was “exploring his sexual orientation and was fearful of his parents’ reaction to his sexuality.”Following the session with the psychiatrist, he was referred for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to a clinical psychologist – also discussing his weekly progress with the psychiatrist.Subsequently, on one of the sessions, where the young adult was accompanied by his mother, the psychiatrist allegedly revealed details of the man’s sexual orientation to his mother, upon her questioning the psychiatrist of the same.The plea alleges that this act of the psychiatrist breached the man’s right to privacy, as also doctor-patient confidentiality, and goes against provisions of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017. He stated that this disclosure by the psychiatrist of “fundamentally private information without his consent and the potential disastrous consequences that he could face” caused him “severe distress”.The petitioner stated, through his counsel, Adv. Mihir Samson, that he had made a complaint against the incident to VIMHANS, which was duly acknowledged by them, and sought action against the said psychiatrist.However, in a joint reply, on behalf of the Director, VIMHANS and the psychiatrist, he was informed of their refusal to initiate proceedings under the Mental Health Care Act.Upon this refusal, the man had sought to approach the Mental Health Review Board (MHRB) as per the scheme of the Act, but had come to know that in Delhi, the State Mental Health Authority (SMHA) itself functions as the MHRB, which the petition alleged was in “gross violation of the Act.” Further, the SMHA also was one that was set up under the now-repealed Mental Health Act, 1987.The petition stated that it had approached the Delhi government for constitution of these two bodies as per the provisions of the Act, however, to no avail.Delhi government, represented by Adv. Devesh Singh sought time to seek instructions, Adv. Tushar Sannu, appearing for the SMHA, disputed the submissions of the petitioner, stating that both the authorities are working, and added that (Retd.) District and Sessions Judge Subash Goel was currently presiding over the MHRB.(Shreyus Sukhija v GNCTD)Next Storylast_img

Leave a Reply