No exemption for Doctors under CPA! Supreme Court junks petition seeking judgment revisitation
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi: Upholding the doctors' liability under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Supreme Court bench recently dismissed a review petition filed against the previous order through which the Apex Court had refused to reconsider the 1995 judgment in the case of Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha.
In the 1995 judgment, the top court bench had held that the doctors and medical professionals come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019). In the judgment, the apex court ruled that services rendered by doctors and medical practitioners are covered under the Act if they are paid services.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan ordered,
"Having perused the Review Petition and the connected papers with meticulous care, we do not find any justifiable reason to entertain the review petition...The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that last year in May, a two-judge bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal had pointed 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 v VP Shantha to a larger bench for reconsideration.
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 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 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," Supreme Court had held in the 1995 order.
However, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal had observed that the 1995 judgment required reconsideration "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."
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.
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.
Filing the present plea, the Medico-Legal Society of India 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.
To view the top court order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-order-cpa-274910.pdf
Also Read: Major setback to medical fraternity! Doctors Still Liable under Consumer Protection Act
