Plea filed before Supreme Court to exclude doctors from liability under Consumer Protection Act

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the response of the Union Ministries of Health and Consumer Affairs to a plea seeking the exclusion of medical professionals from the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Association of Healthcare Providers (India) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.]..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria heard the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition, which seeks a change in the law that presently allows patients to approach consumer courts for complaints of medical negligence..The plea has been filed by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India) (AHPI) and its former President, a Bengaluru-based doctor. It argues that bringing doctors under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 weakens the trust at the heart of the doctor-patient relationship.“The inclusion of medical professionals under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, undermines the trust-based, fiduciary nature of the doctor-patient relationship and erodes the moral foundation of medical practice," the plea reads. .The Consumer Protection Act allows individuals who purchase goods or services to seek quick remedies for unfair practices or poor service before consumer commissions.Since a 1995 Supreme Court ruling in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, medical services have been treated as “services” under consumer law, making doctors and hospitals answerable before consumer dispute redressal bodies..The petition argues that treating medical care like an ordinary consumer service does not reflect the unique nature of the profession. It points to the 2024 Apex Court ruling that held lawyers outside the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, noting that professional services are different from commercial ones. The plea also notes that, in that judgment, the Court had observed that its earlier decision bringing doctors under consumer law might need to be revisited by a larger Bench in an appropriate case.According to the petition, healthcare involves professional judgment exercised in uncertain situations rather than guaranteed outcomes. “Unlike some other professions where problems may have more straightforward solutions, the doctors often face ambiguity and uncertainty in their work, making control over outcomes elusive,” explains the petition..The plea further contends that the threat of consumer court cases has reshaped medical practice across the country. It points to the growing trend of “defensive medicine,” where doctors order additional tests or procedures mainly to shield themselves from potential lawsuits, rather than for medical necessity. As the petition puts it, “While the Consumer Protection Act was enacted with noble intentions, its application to healthcare is structurally and philosophically incompatible with the practice of medicine. The fear of litigation has fostered defensive medicine, inflated costs and weakened communication.”.Additionally, the petition questions the effectiveness of consumer forums in resolving medical disputes. It highlights delays, lack of medical expertise among adjudicators, and inconsistent compensation decisions."The delays and procedural weaknesses of existing forums compounded by vacancies, lack of medical expertise among adjudicators, and inconsistent compensation frameworks further erode faith in the system. Patients today face multiple fragmented options, from consumer forums to medical councils, none of which provide a holistic or timely resolution... Errors made despite reasonable care should lead to structured review and learning, not punishment,” argues the plea..The petition stresses that patients often look for communication rather than court battles after adverse outcomes that may only serve to erode trust and professional morale. It states, “Most patients do not seek litigation; they seek acknowledgment, explanation and reassurance. Prolonged adversarial proceedings rarely deliver these outcomes and instead erode mutual trust and professional morale.”.The petition further points out that medical professionals are already subject to multiple regulatory and legal mechanisms outside the consumer law framework. These include disciplinary proceedings before medical regulatory bodies such as the National Medical Commission, as well as civil courts and criminal processes where allegations of negligence can be examined in detail.According to the plea, these existing structures are better suited to assess medical judgment and professional standards than summary consumer court proceedings..The petition ultimately seeks a direction from the Supreme Court to exempt doctors holding an MBBS degree or higher from the definition of “service" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The petition contend this is necessary to protect the trust between doctors and patients and to prevent complex medical decisions from being judged like ordinary commercial disputes..The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Malvika Trivedi, along with advocates Sanyam Khetarpal, Vijay Kasana (AOR), Nitesh Goyal and Pawan Aneja..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.