The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a public interest litigation seeking a declaration that medical professionals should not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The court issued notice to the Union Ministries of Health and Family Welfare and Consumer Affairs, along with the National Medical Commission, seeking their responses on the matter.
The petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India) along with Alexander Thomas. It requests a writ of mandamus directing authorities to exclude medical practitioners holding MBBS or higher qualifications from the definition of “service” under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act. The petitioners contend that bringing doctors within the framework of consumer law has adversely affected the patient-doctor relationship and contributed to the emergence of defensive medical practices.
According to the plea, subjecting healthcare professionals to consumer litigation has gradually altered the nature of medical practice, making it increasingly transactional rather than trust-based. The petition argues that fear of legal action has encouraged doctors to adopt precautionary approaches such as ordering additional tests or procedures primarily to avoid potential disputes, which, it states, has contributed to rising healthcare costs without necessarily improving patient outcomes.
The petition relies substantially on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Bar of Indian Lawyers vs. D.K. Gandhi (2024) case, which held that the legislature did not originally intend to include professionals within the scope of consumer protection legislation. The judgment had also observed that the court’s earlier ruling in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995), which brought medical services under consumer law, may require reconsideration by a larger bench.
The plea highlights that while advocates have since been excluded from the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act following judicial developments, doctors continue to remain covered under the 1995 precedent. The petitioners argue that this creates an inconsistency in the legal treatment of professional services.
The filing also refers to the personal experience of Alexander Thomas, a senior medical professional, who was involved in a consumer forum case in the mid-1990s concerning treatment provided to a road accident victim. Although the complaint was ultimately dismissed, the petition states that the prolonged litigation had a significant professional and personal impact.
Additionally, the petition contends that the Consumer Protection Act has struggled to provide timely relief even to patients due to case backlogs and procedural delays. It argues that prolonged litigation undermines the intended objective of speedy consumer dispute resolution.
The plea emphasises that the patient-doctor relationship traditionally rests on trust, empathy and professional ethics, and asserts that its inclusion under consumer law has altered this dynamic. It further submits that continued inclusion of doctors under the Act may not serve the broader interests of patients or the healthcare system.
Senior advocate Malvika Trivedi appeared for the petitioners along with advocates Sanyam Khetarpal, Vijay Kasana, Nitesh Goyal and Lisa Sankrit. The matter will proceed after responses are received from the concerned ministries and regulatory authorities.
