What happens if there are Technical Violations of the Mental Health Act?

Sandeep Vohra vs. The State

Filed under: Section 329, 498-A, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code
Sections 2(i), (j), 19(2) of the Mental Health Act
Petitioner: Dr. Sandeep Vohra
Respondents: State and Ors
Citation: 98(2002) DLT 273
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: S.K.Agarwal

This is a petition filed by Dr. Sandeep Vohra asking for anticipatory bail against arrest for causing harm to a woman.

Facts

Dr. Sandeep Vohra was a Senior Consultant Psychiatrist in the Apollo Hospital and also an empanelled consultant Psychiatrist of the French and German Embassies. In addition he owned and managed a Neuropsychiatry Centre, which was registered.

It was at this center that he had admitted a patient on the basis of an emergency request and a written consent of her husband. On the basis of the information provided by her husband it was decided that the patient was "paranoid" and had refused to be taken to a doctor or to be treated or to accept the fact that she was ill.

Dr. Vohra commenced treatment and admitted the patient to his nursing home for observation and further treatment. He claimed that the police on behest of the patient's brother, an IAS officer, harassed him. The patient was discharged later at the written request of her brother along with a statement that he had "nothing against the doctor".

Arguments on behalf of the State

The prosecution extended the following arguments:
  1. that Dr. Vohra technically was not a "medical officer" or "medical officer-in charge" as defined in section 2 (i) and (j) of the Mental Heath Act.

  2. that the patient was admitted without obtaining second opinion certificates from other doctors especially in view of the fact that admission to the nursing home was in violation of section19 (2) of the Mental Health Act.

  3. that Dr. Vohra administered medications and then admitted the patient without carrying out any investigations with the intent to cause hurt and to confine illegally.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that the allegations of not taking another doctor's opinion and that the nursing home was not registered under the Act were technical violations of the Act and not enough to deny a practising doctor the benefit of the pre-arrest bail.

The court acknowledged that the police had not been able to collect expert evidence to show that the patient was not suffering from paranoid schizophrenia or that she had been deliberately given incorrect treatment or that the fee charged by the doctor was abnormal.

It was accepted that Dr. Vohra was a qualified doctor and hence that there was no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence while on bail. Thus, the application was allowed.

Sections Referred: