Services by doctors, medical professionals covered by Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that mere repeal of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the 2019 Act would not result in exclusion of health care services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of term 'service'. .A Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni was approached with a public interest litigation by Medicos Legal Action Group, a trust from Chandigarh seeking a declaration that the services performed by health care service providers was not included within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. They also sought an order directing all consumer fora within the jurisdiction of High Court to not accept complaints filed under the 2019 Act against health care providers. .The plea was based on parliamentary debates on the Consumer Protection Bill wherein it was apparently argued by the Minister for Consumer Affairs, that "‘healthcare’ had been deliberately kept out of the 2019 Act".This, the PIL stated, clearly indicated the parliamentary intent of not including ‘health care’ within the definition of “service” in the 2019 Act..At the outset, the Bench compared the definition of "services" from the 1986 Act and 2019 Act to conclude that there was no material difference between the two definitions..The Bench also relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Indian Medical Association Vs. V. P. Shantha & Ors. in which the apex court had specifically brought the services rendered by medical practitioners or persons closely related to the medical profession within the purview of "services" under the Act. "We see no reason to hold that merely because of enactment of the 2019 Act upon repeal of the 1986 Act as well as the parliamentary debates referred to by the petitioning Trust, the efficacy of the law laid down in Indian Medical Association as a binding precedent would stand eroded," the Court said. .The Bench also reasoned that if Parliament intended to give a meaning to the term "services" different from what the Supreme Court has laid down, then such intention ought to have been reflected by specific exclusion of ‘health care’ from the purview of the 2019 Act."While construing a statute, what has not been said is equally important as what has been said," the Bench emphasised. .Having given their opinion on the contentions raised in a "thoroughly misconceived PIL", the Bench refused to accept the argument that "services rendered by doctors in lieu of fees/charges therefore are beyond the purview of the 2019 Act".The Court, therefore, proceeded to hold that "mere repeal of the 1986 Act by the 2019 Act, without anything more, would not result in exclusion of ‘health care’ services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of the term 'service'"..The Bench dismissed the PIL with penalty of ₹ 50,000 on the petitioner-which has to be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within a month failing which such sum shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue..Advocates Ashish Chavan, Adithya Iye and Kunal Shinde appeared for the Trust. Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh along with advocates Aditya Thakker and DP Singh appeared for the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution..[Read Order]