Health Care Services Provided By Doctors Covered Under Consumer Protection Act 2019 : Supreme Court Affirms Bombay HC Judgment

 on 29th April-2022 . a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by an organization named "Medicos Legal Action Group".

Very BAD DAY(29TH APRIL) FOR MEDICAL PROFESSION

Health Care Services Provided By Doctors Covered Under Consumer Protection Act 2019 : Supreme Court Affirms Bombay HC Judgment

Mere repeal of the 1986 Act by the 2019 Act would not result in exclusion of 'health care' services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of the term 'service'.

The Supreme Court on Friday affirmed a Bombay High Court judgment which held that doctors and healthcare services are not excluded from the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Expressing agreement with the High Court's view, a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by an organization named "Medicos Legal Action Group" .

The petitioner challenged the Bombay High Court's judgment delivered in October 2021 which dismissed its plea that consumer complaints can't be filed against doctors under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. A division bench of the High Court had observed that "the mere repeal of the 1986 Act by the 2019 Act, without anything more, would not result in exclusion of 'health care' services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of the term 'service'"

"We are in agreement with the reasons made by the Division Bench judgment of the High Court", the Supreme Court said while dismissing the SLP. The Court however granted four more weeks time to the petitioner to deposit the cost of Rs 50,000/- imposed by the High Court.

The petitioner based its case on a statement reportedly made by the Union Minister while introducing the Consumer Protection Bill 2018 that health care services are not covered under it. The bench said that the Minister's statement cannot restrict the ambit of the statute.

What Transpired In The Supreme Court Today?

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra submitted that in the 1986 legislation there was no mention of healthcare in the definition of "services". Though there was a proposal to include it under the new Act, it was eventually dropped.

"The definition of "Service" is wide enough under the Act. If the Parliament wanted to exclude, they would have said it expressly," remarked Justice DY Chandrachud while laying emphasis on the word, "Service of any description."

On Senior Counsel relying on the parliamentary debate on the Bill, 2018, the judge further said, "Reason why healthcare was deleted was because the definition of the expression of service was wide enough. The Minister's speech in the house cannot restrict the ambit of the Act. Your clients committed a self goal. Some consumer negligence case against the doctor, they prompted to file the PIL. They are all motivated PIL's."

"We'll affirm the judgment of the High Court. It's a very guarded statement of the Minister also. The Minister is also saying that we have included but not expressly included in it," the judge further added.

Senior Counsel at this juncture submitted that even the view taken by the Court in Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha's (1995) 6 SCC 651 judgment will require reconsideration. In the said judgement, the Top Court had held that the contract between the medical practitioner and his patient cannot be treated as a contract of personal service as a master-servant relations are absent. It would be a contract for services and therefore, will not be covered by the exclusionary part, Court had further said.

"But that we will consider when a case arises before us when reference is made to a larger bench," remarked Justice Chandrachud while dismissing the petition.

High Court verdict

At the High Court, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice GS Kulkarni observed that there was not much difference between the definition of "services" under the 1986 Act and the 2019 Act. Health care was not expressly mentioned in the definition of "services" under the 1986 Act as well.

Later, the Supreme Court in its judgment in Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha's (1995) 6 SCC 651 held that health care services are covered under the 1986 Act. The bench said that the definition of services is only illustrative and not exhaustive.

"We see no reason to hold that merely because of enactment of the 2019 Act upon repeal of the 1986 Act as well as the parliamentary debates referred to by the petitioning Trust, the efficacy of the law laid down in the decision in Indian Medical Association (supra) as a binding precedent would stand eroded. The definition of "service" in both the enactments (repealed and new) are more or less similar and what has been said of "service" as defined in section 2(1)(o) of the 1986 Act would apply ex proprio vigore to the definition of the terms "service" in section 2(42) of the 2019 Act. Therefore, we have little reason to hold that services rendered by doctors in lieu of fees/charges therefor are beyond the purview of the 2019 Act", the High Court noted further.

The High Court also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner.

The Kerala High Court also recently held that health services are covered under the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Case Title: Medicos Legal Action Group v Union of India| SLP (Civil) 19374/2021