Supreme Court Issues Notice To The Central Government And IRDA For Medical Insurance For The Treatment Of Mental Illness: What Should You Know About It?

Admin

Introduction

It started in 2017 when the Mental Health Care Act received the assent of the President on the 7th of April and came in force on 7th July, 2018. The act deals with the rights of persons with mental illnesses and ensures that no discrimination takes place, which is one amongst the many objectives of the act.

The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) is an autonomous regulatory body that protects the rights of policyholders and oversees the insurers. After the act came into force, IRDA issued a letter dated 16.08.2018 with guidelines for the insurers to comply with the following act-specifically the provisions that talk about no discrimination between physical and mental illnesses while availing medical insurance.

Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal filed an application dated 10/01/2019 under section 6 of the Right to Information Act – 2005 and as such, requested the IRDA to provide valuable information that should have been the outcome of the guidelines issued. The RTI questioned about –

  • The names of the insurers who adopted and followed the guidelines.
  • The number of insurers who have actively done so.
  • Insurers who did not comply with the MHCA and IRDA.
  • Measures were taken by the IRDA against the ones who are not considering the guidelines.

Approximately after a month on 6th February 2019, IRDA answered that no one has followed the guidelines and that there has been no action against them. To this, Mr. Bansal has filed a petition claiming that the insurance companies are still reluctant towards the inclusion of mental illness while making insurance and that IRDA has acted as a facilitator.

Relevant provisions

Section 21(4) of the act specifically concerns the agenda as it talks about the insurance and IRDA is the regulatory body for the insurers. The section says that-

“Every insurer shall make provision for medical insurance for treatment of mental illness on the same basis as is available for treatment of physical illness.”[1]

Inclusion of Section 21(4) in MHCA–2017 is a result of the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) bythe Government of India. Article 25 of UNCRPD deals with health and clause (e) of the same deals with the prohibition of discrimination against persons with disabilities in the provisions of health insurance as well as life insurance.

Clause (e) of the concerned section provides that-:

“States Parties recognize that persons with disabilities have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of disability. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure access for persons with disabilities to health services that are gender-sensitive, including health-related rehabilitation. In particular, States Parties shall:

  1. e) Prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities in the provision of health insurance, and life insurance where such insurance is permitted by national law, which shall be provided in a fair and reasonable manner.”[2]

Analysis

The articles from MHCA and UNCRPD clearly state that with regards to insurance, it is of utmost importance that zero discrimination exists between the physical and the mental illnesses. What led the petitioner to file an RTI and then a petition is the reluctant behavior of IRDA (happens to be Respondent No.2 in the concerned petition). What triggered the case further and brought the Mental Health Care Act under the spotlight is the unfortunate death of a Bollywood actor-Sushant Singh Rajput. Claims are that the reason for his suicide is the depression that he was going through. The concept of mental awareness comes up in the nation when social media wants it to. The last time when people got suddenly aware of it was the time when another Bollywood actress-DeepikaPadukoneopened up about her depression.

The petition filed also has various other reasons apart from the lethargic behavior of insurers and the IRDA; the primary being the process of it. People are generally not open about their mental illness and more often than not they do not include it in the health insurance. The guidelines were issued to enhance the process so that that the person gets himself/herself more secure insurance.The counsel for the petitioner stated that due to this behavior, “thousands of persons who are fit for discharge but are languishing in mental hospitals have been deprived of getting health insurance schemes which ultimately will harm their path of rehabilitation.”[3]

He further argued that due to the “red tape attitude of the IRDA”, the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, have not been compiled and its non-compliance has affected those suffering from mental illness.[4] However, for IRDA, we have the Insurance Act of 1938 that deals with the penalty for not being able to comply with the provisions of the act; the amount for which shall not exceed 5 lakh rupees.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a notice on a petition seeking directions to insurance companies to provide medical insurance coverage for the treatment of mental illness.The bench comprising Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, and B.R. Gavai sought a response from the Central Government and the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India (IRDA) on the plea.[5]

The petition makes its point loud and clear. Mr. Gaurav Bansal also said that he has no personal monetary benefit attached to this scenario. He is rather doing for the sordid position of people at mental hospitals and as an active member of the legal fraternity. The apex court bench headed by Justice Nariman clarified the contentions via video conferencing and issued the notice regarding the same.

We hope that this helps as an example to spread the importance of mental awareness in policymaking. We further hope that IRDA regulates the insurers in a strict and better manner.

 

By-

   

Vaibhav Chaturvedi

Lloyd Law College

                                                                                                                       

[1] S21(4) Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

[2] United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 25(e) https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html

[3]ApoorvaMandhani, SC issues notice to Centre, IRDA on plea seeking insurance for mental illness treatment, THE PRINT(16 June, 2020 3:08 pm IST) https://theprint.in/judiciary/sc-issues-notice-to-centre-irda-on-plea-seeking-insurance-for-mental-illness-treatment

[4]JapnamBindra, SC notice to Centre, IRDA on plea to extend insurance for mental illness(16 Jun 2020, 01:22 PM IST) https://www.livemint.com/news/india/sc-notice-to-centre-irda-on-plea-to-extend-insurance-for-mental-illness-11592291880958.html

[5]ApoorvaMandhani, SC issues notice to Centre, IRDA on plea seeking insurance for mental illness treatment, THE PRINT(16 June, 2020 3:08 pm IST) https://theprint.in/judiciary/sc-issues-notice-to-centre-irda-on-plea-seeking-insurance-for-mental-illness-treatment