Today, On 10th February, A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking to exclude doctors from liability under the Consumer Protection Act. The petition claims applying consumer law to medical services encourages defensive medical practice and says better mechanisms exist to assess negligence.
The Supreme Court requested responses from the Union Ministries of Health and Consumer Affairs regarding a plea to exclude medical professionals from the framework of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice NV Anjaria reviewed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that seeks modifications to the current law permitting patients to approach consumer courts for issues concerning medical negligence.
The petition was initiated by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India) (AHPI) along with its former President, a doctor based in Bengaluru.
It asserts that including healthcare providers under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 jeopardizes the trust inherent in the doctor-patient relationship.
The plea states,
“The inclusion of medical professionals under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, undermines the trust-based, fiduciary nature of the doctor-patient relationship and erodes the moral foundation of medical practice,”
The Consumer Protection Act enables individuals purchasing goods or services to seek prompt remedies for unfair practices or inadequate service through consumer commissions.
Since the Supreme Court’s 1995 ruling in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, medical services have been classified as services under consumer law, holding doctors and hospitals accountable to consumer dispute resolution bodies.
The petition asserts that equating medical care with standard consumer services fails to recognize the unique attributes of the profession. It cites a 2024 Apex Court ruling that placed lawyers outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, indicating that professional services differ from commercial ones.
Furthermore, the plea mentions that during that judgment, the Court noted that its previous decision including doctors in consumer law might warrant reevaluation by a larger Bench under appropriate circumstances.
It contends that healthcare necessitates professional judgment in uncertain scenarios, rather than guaranteed results.
The petition explains,
“Unlike some other professions where problems may have more straightforward solutions, doctors often face ambiguity and uncertainty in their work, making control over outcomes elusive,”
The plea further argues that the fear of litigation has transformed medical practices nationwide. It highlights the trend of defensive medicine, where doctors conduct additional tests or procedures primarily to protect against potential lawsuits, rather than for actual medical need.
As articulated in the petition,
“While the Consumer Protection Act was enacted with noble intentions, its application to healthcare is structurally and philosophically incompatible with the practice of medicine. The fear of litigation has fostered defensive medicine, inflated costs, and weakened communication.”
In addition, the petition scrutinizes the effectiveness of consumer forums in addressing medical disputes. It draws attention to issues such as delays, lack of medical expertise among adjudicators, and inconsistent compensation decisions.
The plea argues,
“The delays and procedural weaknesses of existing forums compounded by vacancies, lack of medical expertise among adjudicators, and inconsistent compensation frameworks further erode faith in the system. Patients today face multiple fragmented options, from consumer forums to medical councils, none of which provide a holistic or timely resolution.Errors made despite reasonable care should lead to structured review and learning, not punishment,”
The petition emphasizes that patients generally seek communication rather than litigation after unfavorable outcomes, as court battles could ultimately damage trust and professional morale.
It affirms,
“Most patients do not seek litigation; they seek acknowledgment, explanation, and reassurance. Prolonged adversarial proceedings rarely deliver these outcomes and instead erode mutual trust and professional morale.”
Furthermore, the plea points out that medical professionals are subject to various regulatory and legal mechanisms outside the scope of consumer law.
These include disciplinary processes before medical regulatory authorities like the National Medical Commission, as well as civil and criminal courts where allegations of negligence can be thoroughly examined.
According to the plea, these existing frameworks are more appropriate for evaluating medical judgment and professional standards compared to summary proceedings in consumer courts.
Ultimately, the petition seeks a directive from the Supreme Court to exempt doctors with an MBBS degree or higher from the definition of “service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The petitioners argue that this exemption is essential to preserve the trust between doctors and patients and prevent complex medical decisions from being assessed as ordinary commercial disputes.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Malvika Trivedi, joined by advocates Sanyam Khetarpal, Vijay Kasana (AOR), Nitesh Goyal, and Pawan Aneja.
Case Title: Association of Healthcare Providers (India) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
