Services By Doctors In Lieu Of Fees Fall Under Consumer Protection Act 2019: High Court

Holding the PIL seeking the exclusion of healthcare services from the Act, as "thoroughly misconceived", the bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and G.S Kulkarni observed, "We, therefore, hold that mere repeal of the 1986 Act by the 2019 Act, without anything more, would not result in exclusion of 'health care' services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of the term "service"."

Thus dismissing the PIL, the bench imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 upon the petitioner Trust and directed it to pay the amount to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within a month.

Also Read: Mens rea as intent not necessary in Medical negligence cases, Following Established procedure is: Supreme Court

The petitioner Trust had moved to the Court seeking a declaration that the services performed by healthcare service providers are not included within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and it also sought a direction upon all the consumer courts not to accept complaints filed under the 2019 Act against healthcare service providers.

It had been contended by the petitioner trust that parliamentary debates on the Consumer Protection Bill, 2018 preceding the 2019 Act led to exclusion of 'healthcare' from the definition of the term "service" as defined in the Bill.

Further the plea pointed out that the Hon'ble Minister for Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, had stated on the floor of the Parliament that 'healthcare' had been deliberately kept out of the 2019 Act. This clearly indicates the parliamentary intent of not including 'health care' within the definition of "service" in the 2019 Act, argued the plea.

The plea pointed out that taking note of the fact that the 2019 Act had been brought into force upon the repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, registration of complaints, which are filed against the doctors, by the consumer fora in the State of Maharashtra is illegal and should be declared so.

After considering the contentions of the petitioner Trust, the Consumer Court compared the term "service" as defined under section 2(1)(o) of the 1986 Act and in section 2(42) of the 2019 Act. At this outset, the HC bench noted, "Reading the two definitions, we do not see any material difference between the two. Except inclusion of 'telecom' in section 2(42) of the 2019 Act, the terms of the definition are identical."

In fact, the court also noted that even though the Section 2(1) (o) of the 1986 Act didn't specifically include services rendered by doctors within the term "service", but such definition was considered by the Supreme Court in its decision in Indian Medical Association Vs. V. P. Shantha & Ors.

Taking note of all these facts, the Court observed,

"We see no reason to hold that merely because of enactment of the 2019 Act upon repeal of the 1986 Act as well as the parliamentary debates referred to by the petitioning Trust, the efficacy of the law laid down in the decision in Indian Medical Association (supra) as a binding precedent would stand eroded. The definition of "service" in both the enactments (repealed and new) are more or less similar and what has been said of "service" as defined in section 2(1)(o) of the 1986 Act would apply ex proprio vigore to the definition of the terms "service" in section 2(42) of the 2019 Act. Therefore, we have little reason to hold that services rendered by doctors in lieu of fees/charges therefor are beyond the purview of the 2019 Act."

Further referring to the contention of the petitioner Trust regarding the statements of the Parliamentary debate, the court noted,

"Despite not taking a rigid view, we are of the clear opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioning Trust, of the Hon'ble Minister having made certain statements in course of parliamentary debates on the Bill that preceded the 2019 Act, is of little relevance. From the pleadings it is found that 'health care' was initially included in the definition of the term "service" appearing in the Bill but after extensive debates, the same was deleted."

"In the context of the 1986 Act and the 2019 Act, there could be no two opinions that the definition of "service" having been read, understood and interpreted by the Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association (supra) to include services rendered by a medical practitioner to his patient upon acceptance of fees/charges, the parliamentarians might have thought of not including `health care' as that would have amounted to a mere surplusage. If at all the Parliament while repealing and replacing the 1986 Act with the 2019 Act had intended to give a meaning to the term "service" different from the one given by the Supreme Court, such intention ought to have been reflected in clear words by a specific exclusion of 'health care' from the purview of the 2019 Act. While construing a statute, what has not been said is equally important as what has been said," the Court further observed at this outset.

Thus, clarifying that mere repeal of the 1986 Act by the 2019 Act would not result in exclusion of 'health care' services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of the term "service", the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition and imposed the petitioner Trust to pay Rs 50,000 as costs to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within a month.

To read the court order, click on the link below.

Also Read: Bombay HC restrains firm from infringing Sun Pharma trademark Prolomet