Doctors exclusion from Consumer Protection Act- Supreme Court issues notice to Centre, NMC
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi: Taking up a plea seeking exclusion of doctors under the Consumer Protection Act, the Supreme Court of India today issued notices to the Union Government and the National Medical Commission (NMC).
The issue of whether doctors should fall under the Consumer Protection Act has once again been 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 Consumer Protection Act, 2019; and Direct all consumer forums to not accept complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against healthcare service providers.
Hence, a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria has considered the matter and sought responses from the centre and apex medical commission.
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.
Also read- No exemption for Doctors under CPA! Supreme Court junks petition seeking judgment revisitation
The judgment in question in the case of Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha & Others was delivered by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court. It was held by the Apex Court that the wide amplitude of the definition of 'service' in the main part of Section 2(1) (o) would cover the services rendered by Medical Practitioners within the said Section 2(1)(o).
Section 2(1)(o) of The Consumer Protection Act says, “service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.
In May 2024, a two-judge bench had referred the 1995 verdict to a larger bench, observing that the issue required reconsideration. However, the three-judge bench later refused to reconsider the 1995 judgment in the case of Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha, holding that the reference was not necessary.
In the latest plea filed by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India), according Live Law report, the petitioners argued that this approach fails to recognise the unique nature of medical practice, which involves professional judgment in situations of uncertainty rather than assured outcomes. It submitted that medical decision-making cannot be equated with commercial transactions offering predictable results.
The association has relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment, which excluded advocates from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, arguing that similar reasoning should also apply to medical professionals.
According to the petitioner, treating healthcare as a consumer service affects the trust-based nature of the doctor-patient relationship.
The petitioner claimed that due to the rise in consumer litigation, the doctors are now acting defensively with respect to treatment, wary of taking risks in emergency situations. It is also argued that consumer fora are not well equipped to deal with complex medical questions. The petitioner further pointed out that doctors are already regulated by the National Medical Commission (NMC), and there are proper mechanisms in place to deal with blatant cases of medical negligence.
Filing the present plea, the association sought exclusion of doctors under the purview of the Act. While the court has considered the matter, there is no change in the legal position as of now.
