Read Time: 05 minutes

The Kerala High Court in a recent decision has held that medical services fall under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 

Justice N. Nagaresh was hearing a plea filed by two doctors who prayed to declare that the consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 do not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of complaints in respect of medical negligence and deficiency in medical service, as medical profession and practice do not come within the purview of the term ‘service’ defined under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

A complaint was filed against the doctors in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur alleging that the complainant therein consulted the 1st petitioner, who diagnosed cataract in her left eye.

However, no relief was granted, in fact the complainant was sent to other opposite parties.

After the treatment by the opposite parties, the complainant lost sight of her left eye. The complainant then alleged that the loss of eye sight was due to medical negligence and sought for compensation of ₹ 32,52,000/-.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Draft Bill of the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019 had included health sector among the illustrations of facilities that are treated as 'service' in Section 2(42) of the new Act.

However, the health sector was removed from among the illustrations under Section 2(42). He argued that the obvious reason is that the lawmakers intended to exclude medical service/profession from the purview of the new Act. 

However, Justice Nagaresh rejected the contention stating external aids like Draft Bills can be taken for interpreting a statutory provision only when there is ambiguity in the express provisions of the statute.

The Court went on to hold that Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act is very clear, observing, 

"A reading of the inclusive part in Section 2(42) would show that the Parliament intended to specifically underline that certain services like Banking, Financing, Insurance, Transport, etc., which are in the nature of public utility services, would come within the purview of ‘services’. The definition is inclusive and not exhaustive. Therefore, all services which are made available to potential users would fall under Section 2(42), except those services rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service."

The Court dismissed the petition and observed that medical services would fall within the ambit of Section 2(42), unless of course the service is free of charge or is under a contract of personal service.

Cause Title: Dr. Vijil vs Ambujakshi T.P.