Can Doctors Be Excluded from Consumer Protection Act? Supreme Court Issued Notice on PIL

The PIL came up for hearing before the bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria.

The bench issued notice and posted the matter for hearing on April 6.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Malvika Trivedi, along with Advocates Sanyam Khetarpal, Vijay Kasana, and Nitesh Goyal, Lisa Sankrit appeared for petitioner

The PIL has been filed by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India) and senior physician Dr Alexander Thomas, through AoR Vijay Kasana under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India and other authorities to exclude services rendered by doctors holding an MBBS degree or higher from the definition of “service” under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Issuing notice, the Court has called upon the respondents to file their responses, signalling judicial consideration of the larger question surrounding the applicability of consumer law to the medical profession.

Section 2(42) of the 2019 Act defines “service” broadly to include services made available to potential users across sectors, while excluding only services rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service. The petitioners argue that applying this definition to medical professionals undermines the unique nature of the doctor-patient relationship and adversely impacts healthcare delivery.

The plea traces the existing legal position to the Supreme Court’s landmark 1995 judgment in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, which held that medical services fall within the scope of consumer protection law. According to the petitioners, the ruling warrants reconsideration by a larger Bench in light of evolving realities, systemic delays in consumer fora, and the distinct ethical and professional obligations of doctors.

The issue had earlier reached the Supreme Court through a reference, which was answered by a three-judge Bench on November 7, 2024. While disposing of the appeal, the Bench observed that the question of extending the Consumer Protection Act to other professionals, excluding legal professionals, could be examined in an appropriate case with a proper factual foundation.

Relying on this observation, the Association of Healthcare Providers had earlier approached the Delhi High Court. That petition was first withdrawn after a Single Judge indicated the issue should be raised as a PIL, and a subsequent PIL was disposed of with liberty to approach the Supreme Court. The High Court held that V.P. Shantha continues to be binding precedent and can only be revisited by a larger Bench of the apex court.

To establish factual foundation, the present PIL places reliance on the personal experience of Dr Alexander Thomas. After completing his postgraduate studies at Christian Medical College, Vellore, Dr Thomas joined Bangalore Baptist Hospital, a charitable mission institution. In 1996, he was named in a consumer forum case relating to the treatment of a road accident victim. Although the case was ultimately dismissed, the petition states that the prolonged litigation caused severe psychological distress and demoralisation, almost forcing him to leave the profession.

The petition further argues that the Consumer Protection Act has failed to achieve its objective of speedy redressal in medical cases, citing persistent backlogs and delays that often stretch into years. It contends that the inclusion of doctors under consumer law has converted a relationship based on trust, empathy, and care into a transactional and adversarial one.

According to the petitioners, the constant threat of litigation has fostered defensive medical practices, compelling doctors to order unnecessary investigations and procedures to protect themselves legally rather than to serve patients’ best interests. This, the plea argues, inflates healthcare costs and erodes trust, which medical literature consistently identifies as critical to positive treatment outcomes.

Terming the continued application of consumer law to doctors as antithetical to the nature of healthcare, the petition seeks a complete exemption of medical professionals from the purview of Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. With the Supreme Court now issuing notice, the case sets the stage for a potential reconsideration of the law governing medical negligence and consumer protection in India.