Evan V

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday issued notice to the Union Government of India and the National Medical Commission on a petition seeking a declaration that doctors and healthcare service providers do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice N V Anjaria was hearing the petition instituted by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India).

The petitioner has sought, inter alia, directions to:

• declare that services rendered by healthcare service providers are not covered by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; and

• direct consumer fora not to entertain complaints under the 2019 Act against healthcare service providers.

Also Read: Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel Cardiologist’s Bail In Alleged Forced Angioplasty PMJAY Govt Funds Claim Case

Medical services were brought within the fold of consumer jurisprudence by the Supreme Court’s 1995 decision in Indian Medical Association v. V P Shantha, which held that healthcare services fall within the definition of “service”.

In May 2024, a two-Judge Bench of the Court had referred the V P Shantha ruling to a larger Bench for reconsideration. Subsequently, in November 2024, a three-Judge Bench declined to reopen the issue and held that such reconsideration was unnecessary.

The petitioner contends that the prevailing approach does not adequately account for the distinctive character of medical practice, which, it argues, is rooted in professional skill and clinical judgment exercised amid inherent uncertainty—rather than in assured or guaranteed outcomes typically associated with commercial dealings.

Also Read: S.138 NI Act | Defect In Authorisation At Time Of Filing Cheque Bounce Case Is Curable: Gauhati High Court

Drawing an analogy with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence excluding advocates from the consumer law framework, the petitioner submits that comparable reasoning ought to apply to the medical profession, given the professional and fiduciary dimensions of healthcare delivery. It further argues that characterising healthcare as a consumer service dilutes the trust-based doctor–patient relationship.

The petitioner also asserts that increased consumer litigation has contributed to “defensive medicine”, with doctors allegedly becoming risk-averse, particularly in emergency contexts. Additionally, it is claimed that consumer fora may not be institutionally equipped to adjudicate technically complex medical issues.

Lastly, the petitioner points out that medical practitioners are already subject to a comprehensive regulatory regime under the National Medical Commission, and submits that the existing statutory mechanisms are sufficient to address serious instances of medical negligence.

Case Title: ASSOCIATION OF HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS (INDIA) v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 110/2026