A review petition has been filed by medical professionals in the Supreme Court, challenging a ruling that subjects doctors to the Consumer Protection Act. They argue this classification threatens patient trust and burdens healthcare providers with legal risks, impacting the doctor-patient relationship. This situation reflects ongoing debates about fairness and accountability in India’s healthcare system.
New Delhi: Medical professionals have approached the Supreme Court with a review petition, contesting the decision that brought doctors under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This petition reflects mounting concerns within the medical community about the implications of treating healthcare as a consumer service.
Doctors argue that this classification could “undermine patient trust and the inherent risks involved in medical practice.”
The controversy stems from a Supreme Court ruling on April 29, 2022, which affirmed that healthcare services provided by doctors fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. This allows patients to file complaints against medical practitioners as consumers. The decision upheld an earlier Bombay High Court order, rejecting an appeal from doctors who argued that applying consumer laws to medical practice would strain the doctor-patient relationship and potentially view every patient as a litigant.
Senior advocates representing the Medico Legal Action Group contended that the judgment was detrimental to healthcare providers’ morale. They emphasized that doctors need patient confidence to carry out life-saving procedures without fear of constant legal challenges. Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court, led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, dismissed the appeal, stating that the Consumer Protection Act’s provisions were applicable to healthcare services.
“This inclusion is detrimental to the morale of healthcare providers, who require the confidence of their patients to perform potentially life-saving procedures without the fear of legal repercussions,”
argued the petitioners.
The debate extends to broader issues of fairness in the healthcare system. In a related ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea for pay parity between Ayurvedic/Ayush doctors and allopathic practitioners. The court emphasized the “qualitative differences in educational qualifications and standards” between these disciplines. The petition, filed by Ayurvedic doctors in Kerala, sought equal pay and benefits, which the court denied, citing significant differences in their degree programs and professional training.
These legal challenges highlight a critical juncture for the Indian healthcare system, where doctors navigate the dual pressures of maintaining patient trust while operating under the increasing scrutiny of consumer laws. For many, the outcomes of these cases will determine the future dynamics of the doctor-patient relationship and the broader framework of healthcare delivery in India.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE