The Indian healthcare system stands at a constitutional crossroads. A recent plea by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India) before the Supreme Court seeking the exclusion of medical professionals
from the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act has reignited a long-standing debate: Should doctors be treated as service providers under consumer law?
The Petition challenges the decades-old legal position that allows patients to sue doctors and hospitals before consumer forums for medical negligence. At stake is not merely statutory interpretation — but the very nature of the doctor–patient relationship. The Supreme Court 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.
The legal background: How did we reach here?
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. Since then, thousands of cases have been filed before consumer commissions at district, state, and national levels.
The present plea: What are doctors arguing?
The recent plea contends that equating medical treatment with ordinary commercial services undermines the complexity and uncertainty inherent in healthcare.
The key arguments include:
-
Medical treatment is not a guaranteed outcome. Unlike the sale of goods, medical care operates in uncertain conditions where outcomes can never be assured.
-
Defensive medicine is on the rise. Fear of consumer litigation allegedly pushes doctors to order unnecessary tests and procedures to shield themselves from liability.
-
Consumer forums lack medical expertise. It is argued that quasi-judicial bodies may not always be equipped to evaluate complex medical evidence. n Existing regulatory mechanisms already exist. Doctors are subject to disciplinary proceedings before bodies like the National Medical Commission, along with civil and criminal liability under other laws.
-
Advocates are excluded. 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 Supreme Court now faces a delicate task: balancing the sanctity of medical judgment with the rights of patients to seek redress.
Conclusion: Reform, not removal?
Rather than a complete exclusion, perhaps the need of the hour is reform:
-
Specialised medical benches within consumer commissions
-
Mandatory expert panels in negligence cases n Clearer standards for assessing medical liability The doctor–patient relationship is built on trust. But trust and accountability are not adversaries — they are complementary pillars of a fair healthcare system. Whether the Court chooses to revisit its 1995 precedent or refine it, the decision will shape the future of medical accountability in India for decades to come.
