Involuntary Admission In Rehabilitation Centres Amounts To Illegal Detention, Telangana Commission Orders Samatha Centre To Pay Rs. 9 Lacs
Recently, the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Additional Bench, Hyderabad) bench comprising V. V. Seshubabu (Member), and R.S. Rajeshree (Member) noted that one cannot be forcibly confined in the rehabilitation centre against one's wishes and subjected to unlawful treatment. It held that Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre’s admission of the...
Recently, the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Additional Bench, Hyderabad) bench comprising V. V. Seshubabu (Member), and R.S. Rajeshree (Member) noted that one cannot be forcibly confined in the rehabilitation centre against one's wishes and subjected to unlawful treatment. It held that Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre’s admission of the complainant without his informed consent was against the Mental Health Act, 1987 and, therefore, amounted to unlawful detention and mistreatment.
Brief Facts of the Case:
Mr. Anand Kankipati (“Complainant”), a resident of Hyderabad was addicted to alcohol. The complainant’s wife got to know about the Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre (“Rehab”) and was informed that the complainant could overcome his "alcohol addiction" by enrolling in their program. Following a family altercation in January 2013, the complainant was taken to a police station, where his family members convinced him to either go to the rehabilitation centre or face jail time. The complainant was taken to rehab without his consent and was confined there for six months. After a disagreement with the rehab staff, he attracted public attention and was taken to the police station. However, he was allegedly brought back to rehab against his wishes. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint against the rehab in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana (“State Commission”).
The complainant vehemently asserted that his distressing ordeal began when he was forcefully admitted to the rehab, against his will and without his informed consent. He contended that this act was not only a violation of his rights but also a blatant disregard for the provisions outlined in the Mental Health Act. During his six-month confinement, the complainant alleged that he was subjected to a harrowing experience of forced labour, mental anguish, and isolation from his family. He further claimed that the rehab’s staff resorted to threats and intimidation against his family, amplifying his sense of entrapment and vulnerability.
On the other side, the rehab and the involved doctors countered the complainant’s assertions by portraying him as a chronic alcoholic in need of gradual rehabilitation. They maintained that the complainant’s admission was consensual, with the understanding that his family was satisfied with the progress he was making during his treatment. Furthermore, the complainant’s repeated attempts to escape the centre were indicative of his non-cooperative attitude, further exacerbating the challenges of his treatment. The rehab contended that the accusations levelled against it were unsubstantiated and appeared to be a strategic ploy by the complainant to unfairly gain advantages.
Observations by the Commission:
The State Commission found that the complainant’s detention in the rehab for an extended period beyond 90 days without proper adherence to the Mental Health Act of 1987 (“the Act”) amounted to illegal detention. Further, the State Commission noted that Sections 15 and 19 of the Act emphasise that a person's admission to a psychiatric hospital must be voluntary and compliant with specific procedures. The State Commission found that the complainant’s admission was not voluntary and that he was subjected to unlawful detention and mistreatment.
The State Commission also observed that the rehab did not have sufficient medical staff, and the complainant was made to perform menial tasks and subjected to inhumane treatment, as evidenced by call recordings. The rehab’s failure to provide proper medical records and maintain legal standards further supported the claim of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
The State Commission rejected the rehab’s assertion that the complainant was suffering from severe alcohol addiction and that his stay was voluntary. It also dismissed the notion that the complainant's actions were driven by a desire for illegal gain through baseless claims.
The State Commission ordered the rehab, along with its doctors, to pay a compensation of ₹9 lakh to the complainant for the illegal detention, inhumane treatment, and deficiency in service. The State Commission also directed the rehab to refund the amount of ₹90,000 paid by the complainant.
Case: Anand Kankipati vs. Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre
Case No.: CC/74/2015
Advocate for the Appellant: Complainant-In-Person
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Hari Babu