The Supreme Court on issued notices to the Union Government and the National Medical Commission (NMC) in response to a petition seeking to exclude doctors and healthcare providers from the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice N.V. Anjaria was hearing a writ petition filed by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India). The petitioner has urged the Court to direct the Centre and the NMC to clarify that medical services do not fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It has also sought directions to consumer forums not to entertain complaints filed against healthcare professionals under the Act.
Medical services were brought under consumer law through the Supreme Court’s 1995 ruling in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, which held that healthcare services qualify as “services” under the law. In May 2024, a two-judge bench had referred the V.P. Shantha judgment to a larger bench for reconsideration. However, in November 2024, a three-judge bench declined to revisit the ruling and held that such reconsideration was unnecessary.
In the present petition, the Association argues that medical practice is fundamentally different from commercial transactions, as it involves professional judgment in uncertain and evolving situations rather than guaranteed outcomes. It contends that equating healthcare with consumer services overlooks the distinctive and trust-based nature of the doctor-patient relationship.
The petitioner has relied on a Supreme Court judgment that excluded advocates from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, asserting that similar reasoning should apply to the medical profession. It further claims that the growing number of consumer complaints has led to defensive medical practices, with doctors becoming hesitant to take necessary risks, especially in emergency cases.
Additionally, the plea states that consumer forums may lack the expertise required to adjudicate complex medical issues. It points out that doctors are already subject to oversight by the NMC and that existing regulatory mechanisms are sufficient to address cases of professional misconduct or negligence.
