New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a declaration that medical professionals do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.
Issuing notice, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria, sought responses from the Union Ministries of Health and Family Welfare and Consumer Affairs, as well as the National Medical Commission, in the matter.
The PIL, filed by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India) and Dr Alexander Thomas under Article 32 of the Constitution, sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to exclude medical professionals holding MBBS or higher qualifications from the definition of “service” under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 2019.
It contended that subjecting medical professionals to consumer law has eroded the patient-doctor relationship and encouraged defensive medical practices.
The petition relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bar of Indian Lawyers vs. D.K. Gandhi (2024) case, wherein the apex court held that the legislature never intended to bring professionals within the ambit of the consumer protection law, observing that the statute was enacted to protect consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices.
Quoting the judgment, the plea highlighted that the latest judgment itself had observed that the apex court’s earlier 1995 ruling in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, which brought medical services under the consumer law, “deserves to be revisited and considered by a larger Bench”.
The plea submitted that although advocates have now been exempted from the purview of the CPA, doctors continue to be governed by the 1995 precedent, despite the changed legal position.
The petition referred to the personal experience of Dr Thomas, a senior medical professional, who was named in a consumer forum case in the mid-1990s in connection with the treatment of a road accident victim. Although the complaint was eventually dismissed, the prolonged litigation had a “deeply demoralising” impact and pushed him to the brink of leaving the profession, the plea said.
Arguing that the Consumer Protection Act has failed to deliver speedy justice even to patients, the petition stated that “the significant and persisting backlog of cases and prolonged delays, often extending over several years”, defeat the very object of the legislation.
“The patient-doctor relationship occupies a singular and sacrosanct space within society, characterised by mutual trust, empathy and compassion. However, since the inclusion of the medical profession under the Consumer Protection Act, this relationship has regrettably become transactional,” the PIL said.
It further contended that the fear of litigation has incentivised “defensive medical practices”, compelling doctors to order unnecessary tests and procedures primarily to safeguard themselves legally, leading to escalated healthcare costs without corresponding patient benefit.
“Retaining doctors within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act is antithetical to the unique and sensitive nature of the patient-doctor relationship and is neither in the interest of patients nor of society at large,” the petition stated.
Senior advocate Malvika Trivedi, along with advocates Sanyam Khetarpal, Vijay Kasana, Nitesh Goyal and Lisa Sankrit, represented the petitioners before the apex court.
(IANS)
