Kerala High Court Expunges Caution Against Doctor For Being Unaware Of Mental Healthcare Act Mandates, Notes He Acted Professionally

The Kerala High Court recently expunged a caution given to a doctor by the Statutory Mental Health Review Board for being unaware of the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal that challenged the order of the Review Board.

The appellant in this case was a doctor having a career of almost 40 years, who was given a formal caution by the Review Board for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act for admitting a patient without capacity assessment and informed consent.

The patient in this case was first brought to the appellant's hospital in May 2024 at the request of his mother and he was treated for 35 days. Later, in August 2024, his relatives brought him again to the hospital and he was admitted and treated for a further period of 35 days.

With respect to the first admission, the Review Board's finding was in the appellant's favour since it was noted that the admission was based on consent offered by the patient's mother. The Review Board felt that the first admission was justified since the patient had psychotic symptoms, including delusions and mood elevation.

According to the Review Board, it is the second admission that was problematic since there was no valid consent or capacity assessment. The appellant brought in a document before the Board alleging that the mother gave consent but the mother of the patient on examination before the Board said that she cannot confirm with certainty that the signature was hers. However, she had admitted without doubt her signature on the document showing consent for the first admission.

The appellant on examination before the Board virtually admitted that he was not fully aware of the statutory requirements under the Act and based on this, the Board rendered a finding against him. The appellant contended that the Board's finding was flawed and rendered without properly analysing the documents.

The counsel appearing for the patient/1^st respondent argued that he was forced to undergo unwarranted treatment, which endangered his life and health as well as his employment. It was said that the appellant was awarded only a minimum penalty.

The Court considered whether the appellant acted contrary to his obligations as a professional doctor. Since the Board had also found that the patient was suffering from irritability and restlessness during his second admission, the Court felt that the Board's findings were hyper technical and deserves to be interfered with.

“It may be possible, from a very hyper- technical standpoint, to find that the appellant had not acted as per the law, or that he was guilty of not being aware of the requirements under the 'Act', as has been admitted by him…When the Review Board themselves have found that the patient was suffering from irritability and restlessness – severe enough for his relatives to respond by taking him to the hospital - we are persuaded to the view that a doctor cannot then be pinned down to technical requirements before providing care. Of course, this is not to mean that doctors under the ambit of the 'Act' can disregard the statutory provisions or imperatives, but solely that since the 1st respondent was exhibiting certain symptoms, we cannot find that the decision taken by the doctor - which was based on his expert opinion - to subject him to further treatment was actuated by malice or questionable reasons. In fact, even the 'Review Board' has not concluded so,” it remarked.

Though the Court felt that the appellant's action did not strictly adhere to the Act's provisions, it thought that the caution was unwarranted since the decision in question was based on his expert opinion.

Thus, the Court allowed the appeal and expunged the caution recorded by the Board. It also directed the appellant to ensure that he complies with the statutory requirements in all future cases.

Case No: MFA (MHA) No. 2 of 2025

Case Title: Dr. Haiderali Kalliyath v. XXX and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 92

Counsel for the appellant: T.K. Sreekala, S. Parvathi, Nikitha Susan Paulson, Uthara Asokan, Anand Geo, V.V. Asokan (Sr.)

Counsel for the respondents: S. Sujini, K.R. Ranjith – GP, Pooja Venkat

Amicus Curiae: V. Ramkumar Nambiar

Click To Read/Download Judgment