Recently, the Supreme Court addressed a review petition seeking reconsideration of its November 7 order that upheld the 1995 judgment in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, which brought medical professionals within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now amended in 2019). The petition argued that excluding doctors from the Act would alleviate their professional anxieties, strengthen doctor-patient trust, and prevent a healthcare crisis. The Court emphasized the significance of addressing professional concerns while balancing patients' rights.
The 1995 judgment in V.P. Shantha classified medical services under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, allowing patients to file claims for medical negligence. A division bench of the Supreme Court, on May 14, raised doubts about the applicability of the judgment to the medical profession, noting that legal professionals are excluded from the Act. However, a three-judge bench, on November 7, rejected the need for revisiting the judgment, reasoning that the legal profession's exclusion was specific to its sui generis nature and did not warrant a broader reference. The present review petition, filed by the Medico-Legal Society of India, challenges the November 7 order, emphasizing the adverse impact of litigation anxiety on medical professionals and asserting the need for trust in the doctor-patient relationship.
The petitioners argued that medical practice involves inherent uncertainties, with outcomes varying significantly based on individual responses to treatment. They contended that the current interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act encourages excessive litigation, placing undue stress on doctors and leading to professional burnout, emigration or even suicide. It was further submitted that the November 7 order failed to provide a legal basis for rejecting the division bench's reference to reconsider V.P. Shantha. The petitioners underscored the violation of natural justice principles, as the Medico-Legal Society of India, an intervenor in the case, was denied a hearing. They argued that decisions affecting the medical fraternity should involve consultations with relevant professional bodies to ensure fairness.
The Supreme Court, while dismissing the need for reconsideration, reiterated that the 1995 judgment adequately addressed the balance between consumer rights and professional accountability. It held that “the medical profession operates within a framework of accountability and patient welfare, which justifies its inclusion under the Consumer Protection Act”. The Court noted that while doctors face unique challenges, removing them from the Act's ambit could compromise patient protection. It further stated, “Trust in the medical profession does not preclude accountability, nor does it justify the exclusion of medical practitioners from legal recourse under consumer laws.”
The Court acknowledged the petitioners' concerns but underscored the Act's consumer-friendly purpose, which includes safeguards to prevent misuse against professionals.
The Supreme Court directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to relevant stakeholders, including medical associations and consumer rights bodies, for awareness and compliance. The review petition was dismissed, with the Court observing that the principles of accountability and patient rights must coexist with professional integrity. The next hearing is scheduled to address broader concerns related to litigation stress and its impact on medical practice.
Picture Source :
