The Supreme Court of India has taken up a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the inclusion of medical professionals (doctors) under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 2019 and issued notices to key government bodies for their responses on the matter. The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria, asked the Union Ministries of Health and Family Welfare and Consumer Affairs, along with the National Medical Commission (NMC), to submit replies on the petition’s claims.
The PIL was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India) and Dr. Alexander Thomas, seeking a writ of mandamus, a judicial order, to exclude doctors from the definition of “service” under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The petition contends that the Act’s application to medical professionals has altered the nature of healthcare delivery and the doctor-patient relationship, arguing that medical practice is fundamentally different from ordinary commercial services. The plea asserts that subjecting doctors to consumer law has led to defensive medical practice, increased litigation costs, and slower legal redress, and that healthcare regulation and oversight already exist through other mechanisms.
The petition references a 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi, which held that lawyers are exempt from the Consumer Protection Act and suggested that the earlier 1995 ruling, Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, which brought medical services within consumer law, “deserves to be revisited”.
In V.P. Shantha, the Court had interpreted the term “service” in the earlier Consumer Protection Act to include medical services, enabling patients to approach consumer forums for alleged deficiencies in medical care.
Key arguments presented in the PIL include:
Nature of Medical Services: The petitioners argue that healthcare services are inherently professional and involve complex judgment that differs from ordinary commercial transactions.
Erosion of Trust: It asserts that applying consumer law to doctors undermines the trust-based, fiduciary relationship central to medical practice.
Defensive Medicine: The petition claims that fear of consumer litigation encourages defensive medical practices, potentially driving unnecessary tests and costs without proportional patient benefit.
Delays in Redressal: It argues that consumer fora often face significant backlogs and delays, which can defeat the object of swift justice intended under the law.
The petition also suggests that other existing disciplinary and legal frameworks can provide avenues to address medical negligence and professional standards without the involvement of consumer courts.
The Supreme Court issued notices to the Union Ministries and the NMC to respond to the PIL’s contentions, effectively placing the matter before the government and medical regulatory authorities for their views before further judicial consideration. The case is expected to be heard again on April 6, 2026, when the responses will be reviewed.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice raised questions about whether exclusion of doctors from the CPA would require legislative action rather than judicial interpretation, reflecting the complex interplay between statutory law and professional regulation.
Under current interpretations, medical services are covered under the Consumer Protection Act. This means patients can file complaints in consumer forums for alleged deficiencies, including medical negligence, subject to procedural rules of those tribunals. The definition of “service” in the law has been held to be wide enough to include healthcare services.
(Rh)