Jharkhand High Court Rules Out Discrimination in Medical Claims for Mental Illness
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that mental health treatment costs cannot be excluded from medical claims, reinforcing that companies must treat physical and mental illnesses equally for both current and retired employees.
Key Takeaways
- Mental illness treatment costs must be covered
- Discrimination between physical and mental health is prohibited
- Coal India and subsidiaries must comply with the ruling
- The Mental Healthcare Act must be upheld in all medical claims
- Legal protections for mental health treatment are reinforced
Ranchi, Feb 11 (NationPress) In a landmark decision, the Jharkhand High Court has determined that expenses related to the treatment of mental illnesses cannot be omitted from medical claims. Companies are prohibited from making distinctions between physical and mental health conditions when processing medical claims for both current and retired employees.
This ruling was issued by Justice Ananda Sen while reviewing a case brought forth by a retired executive of Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), which is a subsidiary of Coal India.
The court ordered BCCL to cover the medical expenses related to the mental health treatment of the petitioner’s spouse.
BCCL had previously denied the claim, referencing guidelines within the “Contributory Post Retirement Medicare Scheme (CPRMS) for Executives of CIL and its Subsidiaries,” which excluded mental health treatment.
However, the court found that such exclusions contravene Section 21 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which specifically forbids discrimination against mental health treatments in medical coverage.
In its ruling, the court emphasized that insurers are required to provide identical health insurance benefits for mental health conditions as they do for physical ailments. “No health insurance policy can exclude coverage for mental health treatment as per the laws of the Government of India,” the judgment stated.
The court also pointed out that the prevailing medical insurance framework within Coal India and its subsidiaries lacks provisions for mental health treatment, thus conflicting with the Mental Healthcare Act.
Moreover, the court asserted, “Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries are classified as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Any policy or resolution they enact cannot supersede a parliamentary law. Provisions that contradict such a law will be considered null and void.”
The court acknowledged that the CPRMS was established in 2008, prior to the enactment of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
It concluded, “I declare that following the enactment of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, particularly in light of Section 21(4) of the Act, the exclusion of psychiatric treatment in CPRMS is rendered ineffective.”
This ruling strengthens the legal framework for mental health treatment, ensuring equal treatment in medical claims across all health conditions.
