Doctors' liability under Consumer Protection Act: SC dismisses curative petition challenging 1995 verdict
New Delhi: On the issue of liability of doctors and hospitals under consumer protection law, the Supreme Court recently dismissed a curative petition challenging its landmark 1995 ruling, which brought medical services under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
In its order dated September 9, 2026, a five-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan dismissed the curative petition filed by the Medico Legal Society of India, observing that no case was made out under the parameters laid down to entertain a curative petition.
"We have gone through the curative petition and the relevant documents...In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Another, (2002) 4 SCC 388... The Curative Petition is, therefore, dismissed," ordered the Apex Court bench.
With this, the Supreme Court closed the latest challenge to the 1995 judgment in the case of Indian Medical Association Vs VP Shantha, which allowed patients to approach consumer forums against the doctors and hospitals for deficiency in medical services.
Background:
Doctors currently fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. In the 1995 judgment, the Supreme Court bench had concluded that service rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner (except where the doctor renders service free of charge to every patient or under a contract of personal service), by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment, both medicinal and surgical, would fall within the ambit of 'service' as defined in Section 2(1) (o) of the Act.
The latest challenge to the 1995 ruling came after the Apex Court in November 2024 declined to reconsider the Shantha ruling, in a reference that was triggered by the Court's judgment excluding lawyers from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that in May 2024, a two-judge bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal had pointed out the requirement of revising the 1995 judgment in the case of Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha. Back then, the Supreme Court bench had requested the Chief Justice of India to refer the Indian Medical Association (IMA) v VP Shantha to a larger bench for reconsideration.
The Court observed while considering a batch of pleas concerning the legal question of whether a complaint alleging "deficiency in service" against Advocates practising the legal profession would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as re-enacted in 2019.
However, later, an Apex Court bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Vishwanathan held that the reference was not necessary. The bench also questioned the necessity of making such a reference in respect of another profession since the Court had already held that the legal profession was sui generis. Accordingly, the top court bench refused to reconsider the 1995 judgment in the case of Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha.
"We find that the issue before the Court was with regards to the legal profession and Court in unequivocal terms came to a conclusion that the legal profession is not covered by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Since the Court came to the aforesaid finding, irrespective of the finding of this Court in Shantha, the reference was not necessary. The question as to whether the other professionals excluding legal profession could be covered by the Consumer Protection Act can be considered in appropriate cases, having a factual foundation... In view of the matter, we dispose of the reference," the bench had ordered.
Earlier, filing a plea, the Medico-Legal Society of India had sought a review of this order. However, the top court bench comprising Justices B.R.Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan found no reason to entertain this plea and accordingly dismissed it. Now recently, the top court bench has dismissed the curative petition filed by the Medico-Legal Society of India and upheld the liability of doctors under the Consumer Protection Act.
AHPI Plea:
The issue of whether doctors should fall under the Consumer Protection Act was brought before the Supreme Court after the Association of Healthcare Providers (India) filed a writ petition asking for directions to the Centre and the National Medical Commission (NMC) to declare that services performed by healthcare service providers are not included in the purview of the CPA 2019; and to direct all consumer forums not to accept complaints filed under the CPA against healthcare service providers.
In February this year, a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria had considered the matter and sought responses from the centre and apex medical commission.
To view the order, click on the link below:
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.