Kalyani Chattopadhayay v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. 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 2021:DHC:1537 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 No. 's 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 same direct the Respondent No.3 to provide adequate police protection/assistance to the Doctors at the Respondent No. 's 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 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 done. He was given injection Haloperidol + Phenargan. While the COVID report was awaited, he was kept in emergency. Next day (3rd February 2021) early morning, he ran away from the emergency and hence, could not be admitted. His COVID report came negative later.”

5. From the above report it is clear that the Petitioner has been again diagnosed with “Schizophrenia” and was admitted in the Psychiatry Ward of AIIMS. He was administered medicines and kept in the emergency. However, he left the Emergency without an intimation or information.

6. Thereafter, vide order dated 13th April, 2021, this court had directed ld. Counsels for the Petitioner and Respondents to place on record, a list of facilities, in and around Delhi, which provide care and treatment to patients of Schizophrenia. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 27th April 2021, the list of the said facilities was provided to the Court.

7. The Petitioner herself had expressed certain reservations about placing her son at Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (hereinafter, “IHBAS”) and hence the Court had considered placing the Petitioner’s son in Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health, Neuro & Allied Sciences (hereinafter, “VIMHANS”) Nehru Nagar, New Delhi.

8. However, today, Mr. Manha, ld. Counsel appearing for VIMHANS, submits that the facility at VIMHANS is not operational, and doctors may not be available at VIMHANS, due to the COVID-19 condition.

9. At the beginning of the hearing today, Mr. Sachar, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, has informed the Court that the Petitioner has again been subjected to violent physical behaviour by her son, and she is currently admitted in the AIIMS Trauma Centre.

10. From the overall facts and the circumstances emerging in the present case, it appears that there is an urgent need to ensure that the safety of the Petitioner and also to safeguard them. The son of the Petitioner also requires urgent medical attention. For the said purpose, the son of the Petitioner also needs to be placed under proper care and treatment, in order to ensure that he does not cause any further physical or mental damage to either of his parents, and also to ensure that his own mental condition improves. This Court is convinced that the son of the Petitioner is unable to take care of himself. In the previous hearings, the Petitioner herself had appeared and also made submissions. Both the Petitioner and her husband are senior citizens. Their safety and security is also of concern to the Court.

11. Mr. Tushar Sanu, ld. counsel for IHBAS, along with Dr. Amit Khanna from IHBAS, have joined the proceedings today. They submit that so long as the patient is brought to their facility, the IHBAS facility would take care of him.

12. The Court has been informed by ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner’s son had tested positive for COVID-19, about 17 days ago, however, he submits that there ought not be any apprehension qua the same, as on today, since the quarantine/isolation period of the Petitioner’s son has already passed.

13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the following directions are issued: (1) The Delhi Police, which is represented by Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ld. Counsel, shall ensure that the Petitioner’s son is taken to IHBAS facility and placed under their care, today itself, under police protection, in terms of section 100 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. All the officers who are facilitating the same shall ensure that adequate protective measures in terms of wearing of masks etc. are taken. (2) Upon the Petitioner’s son reaching the IHBAS facility, the required protocols, in respect of his physical and mental conditions, shall be followed. COVID-19 testing shall also be conducted on him. Further, if the RT-PCR test is conducted upon the Petitioner’s son to determine the same, until the results come out, he shall be kept in the isolation ward. (3) The Petitioner’s son shall remain in care and treatment of IHBAS, which shall file a report before this Court at least two days before the next date of hearing. (4) If any further directions are required, parties are permitted to approach/mention the same, before this Court.

14. The medical reports, which are available and are a part of the record in respect of the Petitioner’s son, shall be shared with Dr. Amit Khanna of IHBAS, in order to assist him in the care and treatment of the patient. the website, shall be used for complying with the directions mentioned above.

16. List on 21st May, 2021.