Supreme Court Seeks Response From Centre In A Plea To Exempt Doctors From Consumer Protection Act

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union of India seeking a response to the Public Interest Litigation (PIL)  seeking to exempt medical professionals from the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 2019, arguing that medical services are a noble profession and should not be treated as commercial transactions.

A petition was filed by the Association of Healthcare Providers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to the Union of India and the National Medical Commission to exempt the services rendered by doctors from the purview of Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“CPA, 2019”), in order to make the Medical Professionals more pro-efficient in discharging their responsibility. 

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria issued notice in the matter.

Senior Advocate Malvika Trivedi appeared for the Petitioner.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted, "I appear for the Doctors who are members of the Petitioner No. 1/Organisation."

Chief Justice asked, "Will it not amount to legislative interference...unless the statute is amended?"

She submitted, "Because the Section does not say it...in the 2024 judgment...."

The primary argument of the petition is that medical services are inherently professional and noble in nature, rather than commercial. The petitioners contend that the CPA, 2019, was designed to protect consumers from "unfair trade practices and unethical business practices" by traders, not to regulate specialized professions.

The Petition stated, "Moreover, it is respectfully submitted that the Consumer Protection Act, in practice, has failed to achieve its foundational objective of swift redressal, as evidenced by the significant and persisting backlog of cases and prolonged delays, often extending over several years. The patient- doctor relationship occupies a singular and sacrosanct space within society, characterized by mutual trust, empathy, and compassion. However, since the inclusion of the medical profession under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, this relationship has regrettably become transactional, with patients perceiving doctors increasingly as commercial service providers rather than as caregivers."

The Petitioners submitted that retaining doctors within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act is antithetical to the unique and sensitive nature of the patient-doctor relationship and is neither in the interest of patients nor of society at large.

"The Petitioners respectfully submit that 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...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", it said.

On May 14, 2024, the Supreme Court had delivered a judgment on the issue of whether advocates can be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) for deficiency of services and whether such services will come under the purview of the CPA, and held that it will not fall under the purview of the CPA. 

The Court had observed, "All these attributes and strengthen our opinion that services of an advocate would, therefore, stand excluded from the definition of 'service' under Section 2."

The Petitioners submitted that the statement of objects and reasons for re-enacting CPA, 2019, there were certain shortcomings found in the CPA, 1986 while administering the said Act and there was not a whisper in the statement of objects and reasons either of the two Acts to include the Professions or the Services provided by the Professionals like Advocates, Doctors etc. within the purview of the Act. It is a very well accepted proposition that Professionals could not be called Businessmen or Traders, nor Clients or Patients be called Consumers, it said.

"Ever since the enactment of CPA, 2019, false and frivolous cases against medical professionals have been on a rise and the medical professionals in India have been writing to the legislature for the enactment of laws excluding doctors...The doctor-patient relationship, which forms the cornerstone of healthcare, has swung from the idealisation of doctors to their devaluation. Violence against doctors has made newspaper headlines several times in the last two decades. This has led to insecurity on the part of doctors who have worked hard to earn their licence to practise", it added.

The petitioners contended that the current legal framework fosters "defensive medicine," where doctors order unnecessary tests and procedures primarily to protect themselves from potential lawsuits rather than for patient benefit. This practice, according to the petition, leads to escalated healthcare costs and erodes the "sacrosanct" bond of trust, empathy, and compassion that defines the patient-doctor relationship.

The petition is also rooted in the personal experience of Petitioner No. 2, Dr Alexander Thomas. In 1996, while serving at Bangalore Baptist Hospital, he and his team faced a consumer case regarding a road accident victim. Although the case was eventually dismissed, the "prolonged and distressing litigation" caused immense psychological trauma, leading Dr Thomas to conclude that adversarial litigation is not the path to justice in healthcare. He has since advocated for expert-led systems of communication and ethics to resolve grievances.

Furthermore, the petition highlights that "healthcare" was deliberately omitted from the 2019 Act's final text, a point supported by statements made by the Minister of Consumer Affairs in Parliament. The petitioners argue that specialized bodies like the National Medical Commission are the appropriate forums for adjudicating professional conduct and treatment standards. They request a writ of mandamus to declare that healthcare services are excluded from the CPA's purview and to direct consumer forums nationwide to stop accepting such complaints.

It was prayed, "a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the interalia direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to declare that services performed by healthcare service providers are not included in the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; b) a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing all consumer forums within its territorial jurisdiction to not accept complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against healthcare service providers..."

Accordingly, the matter is now listed for a further date.

Cause Title: Association of Healthcare Providers (India) and Anr. v. Union Of India [W.P.(C) No. 110/2026]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Malvika Trivedi, AOR Vijay Kasanaalong with Advocates Sanyam Khetarpal, Nitesh Goyal and Lisa Sankrit.