Doctors and the Consumer Protection Act are inseparable ! : Adv. Rohit Erande

 Doctors and the Consumer Protection Act are inseparable !! : Question bothering the medicos for 3 decades has been set to rest by the Hon. Apex court.  

Adv. Rohit Erande ©

The Supreme Court of India has once again affirmed an important principle governing the relationship between medical professionals and patients: doctors and hospitals providing medical services for consideration are not outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

The latest development came on 9 September 2026, when a five-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan dismissed a curative petition challenging the legal position established in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651. The Court held that no case was made out within the strict parameters governing the exercise of curative jurisdiction.

This order is significant because it represents the latest judicial attempt to reopen the question of whether medical professionals should be subject to consumer jurisdiction.

The foundation: Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha

The controversy has its roots in the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651.

The Court held that medical services rendered for consideration constitute "service" for the purposes of the CPA, 1986. Consequently, a patient who pays for medical treatment may approach the consumer forum where there is deficiency in service.

The Court also distinguished a "contract of service" from a "contract for service". A doctor ordinarily exercises professional judgment independently and is therefore not an employee of the patient. The doctor-patient relationship generally falls within the latter category.

The judgment consequently made medical professionals and hospitals answerable before consumer fora in appropriate cases.

The CPA, 2019

The enactment of the CPA, 2019 raised a fresh question. Section 2(42) defines "service" broadly as a service of any description made available to potential users. The definition does not specifically exclude healthcare services.

In the case of Medicos Legal Action Group v. Union of India, the Supreme Court in 2022 declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court's conclusion that doctors and healthcare providers continued to fall within the scope of the 2019 Act. The Court noted that the statutory expression "service of any description" was sufficiently broad and that healthcare had not been expressly excluded.

Thus, the 2019 legislation did not undo the principle laid down in V.P. Shantha.

The 2024 controversy: Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi - Lawyers exluded from CPA ?

A new issue arose in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi, 2024 INSC 410, where a two-Judge Bench held that advocates do not fall within the CPA in respect of professional services.

The judgment generated debate concerning whether the reasoning relating to professional services could also affect V.P. Shantha. However, in November 2024, the Supreme Court declined to refer the medical-services question to a larger Bench merely because of the judgment concerning advocates. Nevertheless, if a Fraud has been played by a Layer, he/she is also not immuned from the Law. however merely a decision is not favourable, the client cannot sue the Advocate, else it shall open the floodgates of cases as ntuarally in every case the decision is going to be someones' favour and against someone. 

The Court recognised that the question concerning other professions could be considered in an appropriate case having a factual foundation. Importantly, V.P. Shantha was not overruled.

The 2026 five-Judge Bench decision

The latest development is the dismissal of the curative petition challenging the V.P. Shantha framework.

A curative petition is an extraordinary remedy. In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388, the Supreme Court laid down the narrow circumstances in which a curative petition can be entertained after the dismissal of a review petition.

Applying this stringent standard, the five-Judge Bench concluded that no case had been made out for exercising curative jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.

The practical consequence is significant: the legal position that patients may invoke consumer remedies against doctors and hospitals for deficiency in medical services remains undisturbed.

Medical negligence is not the same as an unsuccessful treatment

The judgment should not be understood as imposing automatic liability upon doctors. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that an unsuccessful treatment or an unfortunate medical outcome does not, by itself, establish negligence. 

In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, the Court discussed the standard of reasonable professional competence and endorsed the principles associated with the Bolam test.

Similarly, in Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre, (2010) 3 SCC 480, the Court explained that medical professionals cannot be held negligent merely because another doctor might have adopted a different course of treatment.

In Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221, the Court emphasised the need to determine medical negligence on the basis of evidence and accepted professional standards.

Therefore, consumer jurisdiction provides a remedy; it does not eliminate the requirement of proving legally actionable deficiency or negligence.

Free medical services

There is also an important statutory qualification.Under the principles developed in V.P. Shantha, services rendered completely free of charge to all patients may fall outside the definition of "service" under consumer law. The question depends upon the nature of the institution and the manner in which the service is provided.

Thus, the proposition is not that every doctor, in every circumstance, is automatically subject to consumer liability.

What can be concluded ? 

The September 2026 five-Judge Bench decision is an important development in Indian medical jurisprudence. By refusing to entertain the curative challenge, the Supreme Court has left undisturbed the legal framework originating in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha.

The present position may therefore be summarised simply: medical services provided for consideration remain subject to the Consumer Protection Act, and patients can approach consumer fora where legally actionable deficiency in medical service is established.

At the same time, the law protects legitimate professional medical judgment. A poor outcome, complication or difference of medical opinion does not automatically amount to negligence. Liability depends upon the facts, evidence and applicable standard of professional care.

The five-Judge Bench decision therefore represents not the creation of an entirely new principle, but a significant final reaffirmation of a principle that has governed medical consumer litigation in India for more than three decades..

Adv. Rohit Erande ©