Lawyers exempt from CPA, doctors not: SC calls for revisitation of judgment that brought doctors under Consumer Protection Act
New Delhi: In a major observation, the Supreme Court has pointed out the requirement of revisiting the 1995 judgment in the case of Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha, which brought medical professionals in the country under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. In the said judgment, the apex court had ruled that services rendered by doctors and medical practitioners are covered under the Act if they are paid services.
Referring the matter to the Chief Justice of India for further consideration, the Apex Court bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal observed, "...we are of the opinion that the decision of the three-judge bench, in case of Indian Medical Association vs. V.P Shantha (supra) deserves to be revisited and considered by a larger bench. We, therefore refer the matter to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for His Lordship’s consideration."
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 the 1995 judgment, the 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. (2) The fact that medical practitioners belong to the medical profession and are subject to the disciplinary control of the Medical Council of India and/or State Medical Councils constituted under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act would not exclude the services rendered by them from the ambit of the Act."
However, during the recent hearing, the bench called for a reconsideration of the judgment bringing doctors under the Consumer Protection Act.
"However, in our humble opinion, the said decision deserves to be revisited having regard to the history, object, purpose and the scheme of the CP Act and in view of the opinion expressed by us hereinabove to the effect that neither the “Profession” could be treated as “business” or “trade” nor the services provided by the “Professionals” could be treated at par with the services provided by the Businessmen or the Traders, so as to bring them within the purview of the CP Act," opined the bench.
The Court made such observation while considering a batch of pleas concerning the legal question of whether a complaint alleging "deficiency in service" against Advocates practising Legal Profession, would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as re-enacted in 2019.
While pronouncing its verdict, the Court opined that the very purpose and object of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as re-enacted in 2019 was to provide protection to consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices only. "There is nothing on record to suggest that the Legislature ever intended to include the Professions or the Professionals within the purview of the Act," the Court observed.
At this outset, the bench observed, "...a “Profession” would require advanced education and training in some branch of learning or science. The nature of work is also skilled and specialised one, substantial part of which would be mental rather than manual. Therefore, having regard to the nature of work of a professional, which requires high level of education, training and proficiency and which involves skilled and specialized kind of mental work, operating in the specialized spheres, where achieving success would depend upon many other factors beyond a man’s control, a Professional cannot be treated equally or at par with a Businessman or a Trader or a Service provider of products or goods as contemplated in the CP Act. Similarly, the services rendered by a Businessman or a Trader to the consumers with regard to his goods or products cannot be equated with the Services provided by a Professional to his clients with regard to his specialized branch of profession."
"The legislative draftsmen are presumed to know the law and there is no good reason to assume that the legislature intended to include the Professions or the Professionals or the services provided by the professionals within the ambit of the CP Act. Any interpretation of the Preamble or the scheme of the Act for construing ‘Profession’ as ‘Business’ or ‘Trade’; or ‘Professional’ as ‘service provider’ would be extending the scope of the Act which was not intended, rather would have a counter productive effect," it further noted.
The bench noted in respect of the legal profession that role of the Advocates was unique and could not be compared with any other profession. Amongst the arguments put before the Court, it was also submitted that just because the medical profession had been included under the Act through VP Shantha's case, by the same logic, the legal profession could not be included.
The bench clarified that it does mean that the professionals could not be sued or held liable for their alleged misconduct or tortious or criminal acts.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-consumer-protection-act-238258.pdf
