Consumer Connect: 'Medical Services Are Not Excluded From Consumer Protection Act,' Says Expert
· Free Press Journal
Q. Is it true that “medical services” have been dropped from the definition of “Service” under Consumer Protection Act, 2019? Does that mean doctors and hospitals are now out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act? What will be the fate of the complaints against doctors & hospitals currently pending in various Consumer Courts under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Consumer Protection Act, 21986? Will they stand automatically dismissed?
Visit chickenroad-game.rodeo for more information.
Alok Hardikar, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai
Ans: A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court by the Association of Healthcare Providers demanding that medical services be declared excluded from the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Department of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of India has been issued a notice in this regard.
The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 was comprehensively amended and replaced by the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which came into effect in July 2020. It is true that the original draft Bill of 2019, the definition of “Service” explicitly provided for inclusion of “healthcare services” therein. However, when the bill was passed by both houses of the Parliament, the explicit mention of healthcare services was omitted. On this basis, a medical association has filed this petition in the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that “healthcare services” have been excluded from the new Act and that no Consumer Commission should entertain such complaints against doctors and hospitals. In my opinion, this Petition is ill-conceived and is bound to fail.
It is important to note that even in the original Consumer Protection 1986 (CPA, 1986), the definition of “Service” did not explicitly mention “healthcare service” therein. This led to considerable legal disputes, until the Supreme Court in the case Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha clearly ruled in 1994 that “medical services” are included within the definition of “service” under the CPA, 1986. Since the definition of “Service” in the 1986 Act and the CPA,2019 Act is almost the same, the omission of the explicit term “healthcare services” in the 2019 Bill does not mean exclusion of the health care services or medical services from the purview of CPA, 2019 since it is already implicit in the definition of “Service”.
Nevertheless, some medical associations are trying their best to have a legal verdict on this issue. Kerala High Court has already dismissed WP (C) No. 970 of 2022 ( Dr. Vijil & Ors. v. Ambujakshi & Union of India) on 02.02.2022 holding that
that medical services fall within the definition of “Service” under Sec 2 (42) of CPA, 2019.
Similarly, the PIL seeking exclusion of medical services from CPA, 2019 was dismissed by the Bombay High Court with heavy cost of Rs. 50,000/-. (Bombay High Court PIL No. 58 of 2021, Medicos Legal Action Group vs. Union of India - decided on 25.10.2021). Most importantly, the petitioner’s appeal before the Supreme Court is also dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2022.
It is pertinent to note that the Bombay High Court, in its above order (refer para 10), has observed as follows: “ In the context of the 1986 Act and 2019 Act, there could be no two opinions that the definition of “Service” having been read, understood and interpreted by the Supreme Court in IMA v/s V P Shantha to include services rendered by a medical practitioner to his patient upon acceptance of fees/charges, the parliamentarians might have thought of not including “health care “ as that would have amounted to a mere surplasage. If at all the Parliament while repealing and replacing the 1986 Act with 2019 Act had intended to give a meaning to the term “service” different from the one given by the Supreme Court , such intention ought to have been reflected in clear words by a specific exclusion of “health care” from the purview of the 2019 Act. While construing statute, what has not been said is equally important as what has been said.” Most importantly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has refused to entertain Special Leave Petition challenging this Bombay High Court order thus settling the controversy, which is now again sought to be raised by the Association of Healthcare Providers in the new Writ Petition in the supreme Court.
Against this backdrop, the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat has urged the Dept. of Consumer Affairs to request the Supreme Court to dismiss the newly filed writ petition with exemplary cost. This Writ Petition is expected to come up for hearing on 4th April 2026. As such, the complaints against doctors and hospitals in Consumer Commissions shall continue to be heard and disposed of on merits.
Advocate Shirish V Deshpande is chairman, Mumbai Grahak Panchayat. Queries can be sent to him on email: [email protected]
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/