Kerala High Court
Dr.Kuruvila vs Mary Joseph on 21 August, 2025
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
1
2025:KER:63604
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1947
RFA NO. 351 OF 2011
OS NO.147 OF 2006 OF SUB COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT
THE DIRECTOR, SACRED HEART HOSPITAL
PAINKULAM, THODUPUZHA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
SHRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 2 TO 7
1 MARY JOSEPH, GUARDIAN ANGEL
RETIREMENT HOME, AIRAPURAM P.O., KILIKULAM,
ERNAKULAM DT.
2 Dr.KURUVILA PSYCHIATRIST
PAINKULAM MENTAL HOSPITAL
3 P.P.JOSEPH, PUTHUKUNATH HOUSE
MYTHRI TRUST, VADASSERY, KOTTAPPADY P.O,.
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4 PAUL JOSEPH, PUTHUKUNATH HOUSE
MYTHRI TRUST VADASSERY, KOTTAPPADY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
5 JENU PAUL, W/O.PAUL JOSEPH
PUTHUKUNNATH HOUSE, KOTTAPPADY P.O.,
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
2
2025:KER:63604
6 K.C.VARGHESE KAIRUKKUDY HOUSE,
NETHAJI ROAD, ALUVA.
7 JACOB, THOMBRA HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHY P.O.,
MARAMANGALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.X.VARGHESE-R1
SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN - R2
SHRI.SUNNY MATHEW-R3 TO R7
SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE - R2
DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)-R2
SHRI.A.V.JOJO-R1
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
7.8.2025, ALONG WITH RFA.463/2011, 506/2011, THE COURT ON
21.8.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
3
2025:KER:63604
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1947
RFA NO. 463 OF 2011
OS NO.147 OF 2006 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/2ND DEFENDANT
DR.KURUVILA, PSYCHIATRIST,
PAINKULAM MENTAL HOSPITAL, THODUPUZHA
BY ADVS.
DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)
SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE
SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN
SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 1, 3 TO 7
1 MARY JOSEPH, GUARDIAN ANGEL RETIREMENT HOME,
AIRAPURAM P.O.,KILIKULAM, ERNAKULAM - 683541
2 THE DIRECTOR, SACRED HEART HOSPITAL,
PAINKULAM,THODUPUZHA - 685584
3 P.P.JOSEPH, PUTHUKUNATH HOUSE
MYTHRI TRUST, VADASSERY,, KOTTAPPADY
P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686695
4 PAUL JOSEPH, PUTHUKUNATH HOUSE
MYTHRI TRUST, VADASSERY, KOTTAPPADY P.O.,ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT - 686695
5 JENY PAUL W/O.PAUL JOSEPH,
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
4
2025:KER:63604
PUTHUKUNATH HOUSE, MYTHRI TRUST, VADASSERY,
KOTTAPPADY P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686695
6 K.C.VARGHESE, KAIRUKKUDY HOUSE, NETHAJI ROAD,
ALUVA - 683101
7 JACOB, THOMBRA HOUSE,
KUTHUKUZHY P.O., MARAMANGALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM-
686691
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SUNNY MATHEW-R3 TO R7
SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) -R2
SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKKUZHY - R2
SRI.A.X.VARGHESE -R1 (B/O)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
7.8.2025, ALONG WITH RFA.351/2011 AND RFA.506/2011, THE
COURT ON 21.8.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
5
2025:KER:63604
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1947
RFA NO. 506 OF 2011
OS NO.147 OF 2006 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB
COURT/ COMMERCIAL COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 3 TO 7
1 P.P.JOSEPH
MYTHRI TRUST, VADASSERY, KOTTAPPADY.P.O.,,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 PAUL JOSEPH SO.JOSEPH
PUTHUKUNNATH HOUSE, MYTHRI TRUST,, VADASSERY,
KOTTAPPADY P.O.,, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3 JENY PAUL WO.PAUL JOSEPH
PUTHUKKUNNATH HOUSE, KOTTAPPADY.P.O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT.
4 K.C.VARGHESE KAIRUKKUDY HOUSE
NETHAJI ROAD, ALUVA.
5 JACOB THOMBRA HOUSE
KUTHUKUZHY P.O., MARAMANGALAM,, KOTHAMANGALAM.
BY ADV SHRI.SUNNY MATHEW
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANTS 1 & 2
1 MARY JOSEPH
GUARDIAN ANGEL RETIREMENT HOME,, AIRAPURAM.P.O.,
KILIKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
6
2025:KER:63604
2 THE DIRECTOR SACRED HEART HOSPITAL
PAINKULAM, THODUPUZHA.
3 DR.KURUVILA
PSYCHIATRIST, PAINKULAM MENTAL HOSPITAL.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY - R2
SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)-R2
SRI.A.X.VARGHESE - R1 (B/O)
SRI.RAJASIMHAN - R3 (B/O)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
7.8.2025, ALONG WITH RFA.351/2011 AND RFA 463/2011, THE
COURT ON 21.8.2025, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
1
2025:KER:63604
JUDGMENT
Dated : 21st August, 2025
The 1st defendant in O.S. 147/2006 on the file of the Sub Court,
Muvattupuzha, is the appellant in RFA 351/2011. The 2 nd defendant in the above
suit is the appellant in RFA 463/2011. Defendants 3 to 6 in the suit are the
appellants in RFA 506/2011. (For the purpose of convenience the parties are
hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.)
2. The 3rd defendant in the suit is the husband of the plaintiff and the 4 th
defendant is her son. The 5th defendant is the daughter-in-law and 6th defendant is
the brother of the plaintiff. The 7th defendant is the father-in-law of the 4 th
defendant. The plaintiff is an old lady who filed the suit claiming damages alleging
that, at the instance of defendants 3 to 6 she was illegally detained in the 1 st
defendant/hospital and given psychiatric treatment by the 2 nd defendant/doctor,
though she was not at all suffering from any such ailments. As per the plaint
averments, the plaintiff was residing alone for the last several years. While so, on
11.6.2005, defendants 3 to 7 trespassed into her residence, forcefully tied her hands
backwards, dragged her into a car and taken her to the 1 st defendant/hospital and
admitted there. The 2nd defendant started medical treatment alleging mental illness
to her, at the request of the other defendants and administered strong anti-
psychotropic drugs. The plaintiff was very confident and self content of speech and
her manners, conduct and behaviour were like a normal prudent person and in spite
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
2025:KER:63604
of that, she was admitted in the 1st defendant/hospital without complying the
mandatory provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987. At the time of her admission
in the said hospital, she was cent percent normal and a prudent person and never
behaved like a mentally disordered person. The plaintiff also expressed her
unwillingness to be admitted in the mental hospital and even then, in violation of
Section 19 of the Mental Health Act she was admitted and treated by giving strong
medicines. In the above circumstances, her sister preferred a habeas corpus petition
before the High Court as W.P.(Crl).157/2005 in which an Advocate Commissioner
was deputed by the High Court. The Advocate Commissioner, after visiting the
plaintiff, filed a report and on the basis of the report, the High Court ordered to
release her. According to the plaintiff, defendants 3 and 4 wanted to grab her
property and when she was not amenable for the demands, they have forcefully
admitted her in the mental hospital, with the help of the other defendants.
Therefore, she filed the suit seeking damages from the defendants.
3. The defendants filed written statement denying the allegations in the
plaint. According to defendants 1 and 2, when defendants 3 to 6 brought the
plaintiff in the hospital, the plaintiff was suspicious, easily irritable, abusive,
violent, diminished sleep, quarrels with family and neighbours and litigants. As per
the information collected by Mrs.Bindu, a qualified psychiatrist, the plaintiff was
living alone for the past 12 years and shows abnormality for 25 years. Thereafter,
the plaintiff was referred to the 2nd defendant who in turn admitted her as an
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
2025:KER:63604
inpatient as detailed tests were needed. After admission, the plaintiff was further
examined by a clinical psychologist and various psychological tests were
conducted and delusional disorder was diagnosed. The allegation that the
defendants forcefully confined the plaintiff in the hospital and administered anti-
psychotropic drugs etc., were denied. It is also contended that the plaintiff never
expressed her unwillingness to be admitted in the hospital. When the Advocate
Commissioner visited the hospital, the condition of the plaintiff had improved and
thereafter she was discharged from the hospital as directed by the High Court.
4. Defendants 3 to 7 also filed written statement denying the allegations
in the plaint and contending that the plaintiff had acute behavioral disorders and
even prior to the admission in the 1st defendant/hospital she was diagonized with
psychiatric disorder and had undergone treatment also. They would further contend
that the 3rd defendant had conveyed landed properties in favour of the plaintiff as
insisted by her and denied the allegation that they had an intention to grab her
property. According to them, they had taken the plaintiff to the hospital only
because the plaintiff was suffering from mental disorder, in their capacity as the
husband, son and the relatives of the plaintiff. Therefore, they prayed for
dismissing the suit.
5. The trial court framed five issues. The evidence in the case consists of
the oral testimonies of PWs1 and 2 and DWs1 to 3, Exts.A1 to A4, B1 and B2.
After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court decreed the suit and directed
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
2025:KER:63604
the defendants to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff. Being
aggrieved by the above judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants
preferred this suit.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following :
1. Whether the defendants admitted the plaintiff in the mental hospital and
had given treatment with any mala fide intention?
2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court calls for
any interference, in the light of the grounds raised in the appeal ?
7. Heard Sri.Mathew John K., the learned counsel for the appellant,
Sri.A.V.Joji, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, Sri.S.Gopakumaran Nair
(Sr.) and Sri.C.R.Syamkumar, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent and
Sri.Sunny Mathew and Smt.Bhavana K.K., the learned counsel for respondents 3 to
7.
8. The points :- At the time of filing the suit, the plaintiff was aged 69.
According to the plaintiff, her husband, son and brother along with other relatives,
forcefully taken her from her residence after tying her hands from behind and
admitted in the 1st defendant/hospital and had given treatment alleging that she was
suffering from a mental health condition. She was admitted in the 1 st
defendant/hospital on 11.6.2005. Finally she was discharged from the said hospital
16.7.2005, as ordered by this Court in a writ petition filed by her sister who was
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
2025:KER:63604
examined as PW2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would argue that during the
period from 11.6.2005 to 16.7.2005, she was illegally detained by the defendants
and was given treatment like a mentally ill patient. On the other hand, the learned
counsel for appellants 1 and 2 would argue that they had absolutely no prior
acquaintance with the plaintiff and with defendants 3 to 7 and being a dutiful
doctor in the hospital they have only admitted and provided necessary treatment to
the plaintiff when she was brought by her near relatives. According to them, when
the plaintiff was brought in the hospital she had shown symptoms of psychiatric
disorder and that is why she was admitted in the said hospital and was given
treatment. Defendants 3 to 7 also had taken similar contentions as that of
defendants 1 and 2. According to them also, they have admitted the plaintiff in the
hospital bonafide, as she had shown the symptoms of psychiatric disorder.
9. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and her sister was examined as
PW2. In the plaint it was alleged that defendants 3 and 4 admitted her in the
hospital in order to grab her immovable properties. At the time of evidence, PW1
had no such case. According to PW1, her husband had only assigned his share in
the property in their joint names, in her favour. At the time of evidence no malafide
intention could be brought out from the side of the defendants to admit the plaintiff
in the hospital. In other words, at the time of evidence there is nothing to show that
the defendants had any mala fide intention against the plaintiff, so as to picturise
her as mentally ill.
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
2025:KER:63604
10. On the side of defendants 1 and 2, DW1, the Chief Psychiatrist of
Kusumagiri Mental Health Centre, Kakkanad who was also a consultant
Psychiatrist of Lisie hospital, Ernaklam was examined as DW1. After going
through Ext.B1 case sheet in respect of the treatment given to the plaintiff, he
deposed that from the case sheet it is revealed that at the time of admission, the
plaintiff was "easily getting irritable, abusive, at times became violent, not having
sleep and poor personal care". According to DW1, the above symptoms are that of
"paranoid disorder". The plaintiff also had delusion and infidelity. According to
DW1, since the plaintiff was not co-operative for treatment and as she was residing
alone, there was no chance for taking medicines at her own instance and therefore,
inpatient treatment was required. After going through Ext.B1 case sheet, DW1
deposed that defendants 1 and 2 have given only the treatment required to a patient
like the plaintiff. It is interesting to note that the plaintiff has not cross-examined
DW1. In other words, the above evidence of DW1 remains unchallenged.
Therefore, from the evidence of DW1, a Senior Psychiatrist, it is revealed that the
symptoms shown by the plaintiff at the time of admission revealed "paranoid
disorder" and as such, the treatment given are in order.
11. It is true that if the patient is not willing for getting admitted in a
mental hospital, the mandate of Section 19 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 is to be
complied with. Section 19 of the Mental Health Act reads as follows :
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
2025:KER:63604
"19. Admission of mentally ill persons under certain special
circumstances
(1) Any mentally ill person who does not, or is unable to, express his
willingness for admission as a voluntary patient, may be admitted and
kept as an inpatient in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing
home on an application made in that behalf by a relative or a friend of
the mentally ill person if the medical officer in charge is satisfied that
in the interests of the mentally ill person it is necessary so to
do:Provided that no person so admitted as an inpatient shall be kept
in the psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home as an inpatient
for a period exceeding ninety days except in accordance with the
other provisions of this Act.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in the prescribed
form and be accompanied by two medical certificates, from two
medical practitioners of whom one shall be a medical practitioner in
the service of Government, to the effect that the condition of such
mentally ill person is such that he should be kept under observation
and treatment as an inpatient in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric
nursing home:Provided that the medical officer, in charge of the
psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home concerned may, if
satisfied that it is proper so to do, cause a mentally ill person to be
examined by two medical practitioners working in the hospital or in
the nursing home instead of requiring such certificates.
(3) Any mentally ill person admitted under sub-section (1) or his
relative or friend may apply to the Magistrate for his discharge and
the Magistrate may, after giving notice to the person at whose
instance he was admitted to the psychiatric hospital or psychiatric
nursing home and after making such inquiry as he may deem fit either
allow or dismiss the application.
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
2025:KER:63604
(4) The provisions of the foregoing sub-section shall be without
prejudice to the powers exercisable by a Magistrate before whom the
case of a mentally ill person is brought, whether under this section or
under any other provision of this Act, to pass a reception order, if he is
satisfied that it is necessary so to do in accordance with the relevant
provisions of this Act.
12. Both DWs1 and 2 deposed before the Court that, it may not always be
practical for hospital authorities to comply the mandate of Section 19 of the Act,
especially during odd hours when one Psychiatrist alone is available in the hospital.
The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon Section 92(1) of the Mental
Health Act would argue that no suit will lie against anybody acting in good faith
under the provisions of the Mental Health Act. Section 92(1) of the Mental Health
Act reads as follows :-
S.92(1). No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie
against any person for anything which is in good faith done or
intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rules, regulations
or orders made thereunder.
13. On a perusal of the evidence of the plaintiff as PW1 it can be seen
that she has no faith in any of her relatives including her husband, son, daughters
and other relatives. Admittedly, she was living alone in her residence for the past
12 years. She has four children including three daughters. According to PW1,
though her daughters used to visit her in her residence, she did not allow them to
see her. From her evidence it is revealed that she had problems with almost all her
neighbours and relatives. During the cross-examination she admitted that she had
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
2025:KER:63604
given complaints to police officials and other different authorities against several
persons in the locality including, Kuriachan & wife Anice, Pallippadan Yakoob and
son Pathrose, Molykunnel Annamma and son Basil, Puthukunnath Poulose,
Ayakkadan Paily, Molikunnel Korah, Pallippadan Yakoob and his son,
Elavunnithuruthel Gracy and her mother.
14. Ext.B2 is the case sheet produced by defendants 1 and 2 in respect of
the treatment given to the plaintiff. In Ext.B2 it is noted that the OP ticket in
respect of the treatment given to the plaintiff from Pius Gardens, Ayiroor Padam
was produced by the 4th defendant and his wife and its details were noted in Ext.B2
case sheet. Since from the evidence of DW1, an independent witness and Senior
Psychiatrist, it is revealed that defendants 1 and 2 had given only the treatment
supposed to be given to a patient showing similar symptoms, I do not find any mala
fides on the part of defendants 1 and 2 in admitting the plaintiff in their hospital
and giving the treatment, as done in this case. Similarly, though in the suit the
plaintiff alleged that defendants 3 and 4 had an intention to grab her property and it
was with that intent she was admitted in the hospital, at the time of evidence it is
revealed that there is no merit in the above allegation. DW2 is the doctor namely
the 2nd defendant who had treated the plaintiff in the 1st defendant hospital. Since
from the evidence of DWs1 and 2 it is revealed that at the time of admission, the
plaintiff was suffering from psychiatric disorder and the plaintiff could not prove
that defendants 3 and 4 had any mala fide intention to grab her property, there is no
RFA 351, 463 & 506 of 2011
2025:KER:63604
merits in the allegation raised against defendants 3 to 7 also. It is true that in this
case the mandate of Section 19 of the Mental Health Act was not complied at the
time of admitting the plaintiff. However, from the evidence on record it is revealed
that the defendants acted only in bona fide manner to give proper treatment to the
plaintiff and as such, they cannot be directed to pay any damages to the plaintiff. In
the above circumstances the trial court was not justified in awarding compensation
to the plaintiff and as such the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court is
liable to be set aside. Points answered accordingly.
15. In the result, these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and
decree of the trial court is set aside. O.S.147/2006 is dismissed. Considering the
facts, I order no costs.
All pending interlocutory applications in all the appeals will stand
dismissed.
Sd/- C.Pratheep Kumar, Judge
Mrcs/12.8.
