New interpretation of an old law
The question of whether legal professionals and doctors provide services that fall under the Consumer Protection Act (Act) has once again opened Pandora’s box. The Supreme Court recently (Mishra, B. (2024, May 15). Ruling saying doctors liable under Consumer Act needs reconsideration: SC. www.business-standard.com. Website) held that advocates cannot be held liable for inadequate service under the Consumer Protection Act (Act). The court suggested that its 1995 ruling, which held doctors and other medical professionals accountable under the same law, requires reconsideration. The court interpreted based on the legislative intent which was neither the profession nor the professionals be governed by the Act, whether the 1986 version or its 2019 update. It was however clarified that while professionals are regulated by bodies such as Bar Councils or Medical Councils, this does not exempt them from civil or criminal liability for professional misconduct or negligence. A two-judge bench has referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for reconsideration by a larger bench of the court’s judgment in Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shanta and others, decided on November 13, 1995. Therefore, with increasing lobbying over the issue the big question is whether the doctors be taken doctors like lawyers would be taken out of the purview of the Act.
Why Lawyers are outside the Consumer Protection Act?
The Hon’ble Supreme court stated that services provided by an advocate to a client constitute a contract of personal service, thus falling outside the definition of service in Section 2(42) of the 2019 Act. Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, defines “unfair trade practice,” which is a crucial concept for understanding the rights of consumers and the responsibilities of traders and service providers. The term encompasses a range of practices that can be considered deceptive, misleading, or otherwise prejudicial to consumers. The 2019 Act has replaced the earlier Consumer Protection Act of 1986, and it has expanded the definition of unfair trade practices to include several new elements that reflect contemporary concerns, such as e-commerce and digital transactions.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi clarified that while advocates can be sued in regular legal proceedings for negligence, they are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. The bench, including Justice Pankaj Mittal, emphasized that the legislature never intended to include lawyers within the scope of the Act. The court explained that the relationship between a client and their lawyer is like a contract of personal service, meaning lawyers cannot be brought before consumer courts for alleged deficiencies in service. However, they can still face lawsuits in ordinary courts for negligence and other forms of malpractice.
Section 2(1)(o) of the Act (U. (n.d.). 1995 ruling bringing doctors under Consumer Protection Act requires reconsideration: SC. Udayavani. Website) defines the word “service” to mean a “service of any description, which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.
The NCDRC had ruled that services provided by lawyers fell under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It acknowledged that while a lawyer may not be responsible for the outcome of a case due to various factors, they could still be held accountable under the Act if there were deficiencies in their service and a fee was paid. The Bar of Indian Lawyers, through its president, challenged this decision in the Supreme Court. In its verdict, the court declared that legal representation for a fee could not be classified as a service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It highlighted the unique nature of legal services and emphasized that there was no indication that the legislature intended to include professionals within the scope of the Act.
The court distinguished between a profession and business or trade, stating,
“We have emphasized that a profession requires advanced education and specialized training in a particular field of knowledge or science. The work primarily involves specialization and skill, with a significant portion being mental rather than manual labor. Given the nature of a professional’s work, which demands extensive education, training, proficiency, and specialized mental effort operating in specific domains where success often depends on factors beyond one’s control, a professional cannot be equated with a businessman, trader, or provider of goods or services,”
as explained by Justice Trivedi.
Options with Patient Post exclusion of Medical Services from the Consumer Act
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Consumer Protection Act as primarily designed to protect consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business conduct. Excluding medical professionals from the Act’s definition of ‘service’ would limit aggrieved patients’ options for seeking redress through quasi-judicial bodies such as the Medical Council of India and state medical councils. While these bodies address professional misconduct, their focus restricts patients’ ability to seek specific compensation and limits the range of available remedies.
V. P Shantha case law
The Indian Medical Association vs. V. P. Shantha case of 1995 (raj. (n.d.). CASE COMMENTARY ON INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION vs. V.P SHANTHA. Website) stands as a pivotal moment in Indian legal history. It is extending the reach of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to encompass medical professionals, hospitals, and nursing homes. Prior to this ruling, there was considerable uncertainty surrounding the application of the Consumer Protection Act in the realm of medical practice. This reinterpretation holds immense importance as it addresses the challenges faced by victims of medical negligence or those subjected to exorbitant charges by healthcare providers. In the absence of clear legislation or precedent, such individuals struggled to seek redress for damages incurred. The ruling established a contractual relationship between patients and medical practitioners, empowering patients to assert their rights and seek compensation for breaches of contract, including instances of medical negligence. This pivotal judgment thus ensured that patients could effectively pursue claims for damages in cases of malpractice or other grievances. A new chapter in medical litigation now unfolds as the court considers an appeal by doctors contesting their inclusion within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act (COPRA), 1986.
Doctors argue that COPRA was never intended to cover medical professionals, as they are not specifically listed under its services. They claim that under COPRA, they would have to prove their innocence, resulting in undue harassment. Instead, they prefer to be governed by the Indian Medical Council Act or the civil law of torts, where the burden of proving culpability lies with the prosecution. Doctors caution that if COPRA applies to them, they might avoid high-risk cases to evade litigation. Former IMA president N S Chandra Bose warns that this could harm patients, as doctors might refuse to handle emergencies with high risk. Additionally, Munjal notes that doctors might require more tests and investigations before taking cases, increasing treatment costs.
In conclusion, the Consumer Protection Act (COPRA) stands out as a more accessible avenue for seeking justice compared to civil cases, offering a swifter resolution and lower financial burden for consumers. The proposed amendments to COPRA, particularly those aimed at clarifying the liability of doctors and expanding its coverage to government hospitals, hold promise in further fortifying consumer rights within the healthcare sector. However, amidst these developments, concerns persist regarding the adequacy of self-regulation within the medical profession. Instances of lax disciplinary action against erring practitioners highlight the need for more robust oversight mechanisms. Some have proposed the establishment of a dedicated regulatory body akin to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) to effectively address patient concerns and ensure accountability within the healthcare market. As stakeholders continue to deliberate on the best approach to safeguard consumer interests in healthcare, it becomes increasingly evident that a balance must be struck between regulatory measures and the autonomy of medical professionals. Ultimately, the goal remains to create a healthcare system that prioritizes patient welfare while maintaining the quality and integrity of medical practice.
About the author
