08 Nov 2024
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a request to revisit its landmark 1995 judgment, which had classified medical services under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and held that healthcare providers, including doctors and hospitals, could be held accountable under the Act for service deficiencies.
A three-judge bench comprising justices Bhushan R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan addressed a reference by a two-judge bench that sought reconsideration of the Shantha ruling while discussing the distinct status of legal professionals, who are excluded from the CPA’s purview.
However, the bench on Thursday found the referral unnecessary, observing that the Shantha decision remained legally sound and relevant to ensure accountability in health care.
“We find that the issue before the Court was with regards to the legal profession and the court, in unequivocal terms, came to a conclusion that the legal profession is not covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Since the court came to the aforesaid finding, irrespective of the finding of this court in Shantha, the reference was not necessary. The question as to whether the other professionals excluding legal profession could be covered under the Act can be considered in appropriate cases, having a factual foundation,” stated the bench, closing the reference.
It further clarified that “the reference was not necessary” because the Shantha ruling addressed the specific contractual and fiduciary responsibilities that medical professionals owe to their patients, unlike the nature of services offered by legal professionals.
To be sure, the Bolam Test — a standard that has long been recognised in medical negligence cases, has been consistently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of India. Originating from the 1957 English case Bolam Vs Friern Hospital Management Committee, this test states that a doctor is not negligent if they act in accordance with a practice accepted by a responsible body of medical professionals.
In the Indian context, the Supreme Court endorsed the Bolam Test in the case of Jacob Mathews Vs State of Punjab (2005), holding that only if a doctor lacks requisite skills or fails to exercise reasonable competence should liability be imposed. By a judgment on October 24, the Supreme Court further emphasised that medical professionals cannot be held liable for negligence solely because a surgery or treatment does not produce the expected results, asserting that culpability of doctors must stem from clear evidence pointing to a deviation from accepted medical practices.
On May 14, a bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal ruled that lawyers cannot be sued in consumer courts for poor service, clarifying the extent of their liability under CPA of 1986, re-enacted in 2019. This judgment held that legal representation for a fee does not constitute a service under law, noting the legislature did not intend to include professions or professionals within the purview of the Act, which aims at addressing consumers’ grievances against services rendered by a businessman or a trader in regard to goods or products.
Considering the “sui generis (unique)” nature of services lawyers provide in making the judicial system efficient, effective and credible, their services could not be compared with the services rendered by other professionals, the court said. This judgment had come in response to a clutch of petitions challenging a 2009 decision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The commission had held that services rendered by lawyers fall within the definition of “service” under Section 2(0) of the CPA, 1986, which was re-enacted in 2019.
In the same verdict, the Supreme Court also proposed a review of its 1995 ruling in the Shantha case, which held that health care services are covered under CPA, allowing doctors to be sued for deficiency in service and negligence.
“The said decision deserves to be revisited having regard to the history, object, purpose and the scheme of the CPA and in view of the opinion expressed by us that neither the ‘profession’ could be treated as ‘business’ or ‘trade’ nor the services provided by the ‘professionals’ could be treated at par with the services provided by businessmen or traders, so as to bring them within the purview of the CPA,” said the bench. It is pursuant to this reference that the matter came up before a three-judge bench on Thursday.
Source: Hindustan Times