Health Care Services to be Ousted from the Consumer Protection Act 2019: the Grounds and the Arguments

Q. A PIL Has Been Filed By Medical Association To Oust Health Care From The Purview Of Cpa. The Court Has Issued Notice To The Nmc And The Government. What Are The Grounds And Arguments That Should Be Taken?

Here are the key grounds and arguments that can be advanced in support of the PIL seeking to exclude healthcare services from the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 2019:

1. Fiduciary Nature Of Doctor–Patient Relationship

• Medical services are not commercial transactions but fiduciary engagements based on trust and ethics.
• Treating patients as “consumers” undermines the moral foundation of medical practice and erodes confidence in doctors.

2. Parity With Other Professions

• Lawyers were recently excluded from CPA on the ground that their services are fiduciary and not commercial.
• Doctors similarly deserve parity, as their professional obligations are governed by ethical codes and statutory regulations, not market principles.

3. Defensive Medicine & Rising Costs

• Fear of consumer litigation encourages “defensive medicine,” where doctors order unnecessary tests and procedures to shield themselves from liability.
• This inflates healthcare costs and burdens patients financially, contrary to the welfare-oriented spirit of medical practice.

4. Existing Regulatory Framework

Healthcare is already regulated by:

• National Medical Commission (NMC) Act
• Clinical Establishments Act
• Indian Penal Code (for criminal negligence)
• Civil law remedies (tort law, compensation claims)

Adding CPA jurisdiction creates double jeopardy and overlapping forums, leading to confusion and harassment.

5. V.P. Shantha Precedent Needs Reconsideration

• The 1995 Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha judgment brought medical services under CPA.
• Petitioners argue that this precedent is outdated, as healthcare delivery has evolved significantly in the last three decades.
• The CPA 2019 framework is designed for commercial goods/services, not for professional fiduciary services like medicine.

6. Public Interest & Accessibility

• Consumer forums are not equipped to assess complex medical evidence and standards of care.
• Specialized medical councils and courts are better suited to adjudicate negligence claims.
• Keeping healthcare under CPA risks inconsistent rulings and undermines professional autonomy.

Strategic Framing For Arguments

Framing Type	Argument
Ethical Framing	Doctors are healers, not traders; medicine is a calling, not commerce.
Legal Framing	Fiduciary duty parallels with lawyers; existing statutory remedies suffice.
Policy Framing	CPA inclusion distorts healthcare economics, increases costs, and fosters mistrust.
Judicial Framing	Revisit V.P. Shantha in light of changed circumstances and parity with other professions.

---

Q. A Structured Note

Here’s a structured note / skeleton argument for advocacy or academic submission regarding the PIL to exclude healthcare services from the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA):

Structured Note: Grounds & Arguments For Excluding Healthcare From Cpa

I. Introduction

• The PIL challenges the inclusion of healthcare services under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
• Relief sought: Declaration that medical services are not “services” under CPA, and exclusion of healthcare from consumer forum jurisdiction.

II. Legal Grounds

1. Fiduciary Relationship

• Doctor–patient relationship is fiduciary, not commercial.
• Fiduciary services are excluded from CPA (e.g., lawyers).
• Medicine is governed by ethics, not market principles.

2. Parity With Other Professions

• Lawyers excluded from CPA by recent judicial pronouncements.
• Doctors similarly deserve parity, as both professions are regulated by statutory bodies and codes of conduct.

3. Existing Statutory Framework

Healthcare already regulated by:

• National Medical Commission Act, 2019
• Clinical Establishments Act, 2010
• Indian Penal Code (criminal negligence)
• Civil law (tort remedies)

CPA jurisdiction creates duplication and double jeopardy.

4. Precedent Reconsideration

• Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995) brought medical services under CPA.
• Circumstances have changed: healthcare delivery is more complex, regulated, and specialized.
• CPA 2019 is designed for commercial goods/services, not fiduciary professional services.

III. Policy Grounds

1. Defensive Medicine

• Fear of consumer litigation leads to unnecessary tests/procedures.
• Increases healthcare costs and burdens patients.

2. Accessibility & Expertise

• Consumer forums lack medical expertise to adjudicate negligence.
• Specialized medical councils and courts are better suited.

3. Public Interest

• CPA inclusion undermines trust in doctors.
• Risk of inconsistent rulings and erosion of professional autonomy.

IV. Constitutional Grounds

1. Article 21 – Right To Health

• Defensive medicine and rising costs infringe on affordable healthcare.
• CPA inclusion indirectly violates the right to health.

2. Article 14 – Equality

• Unequal treatment vis-à-vis lawyers, who are excluded.
• Arbitrary classification of doctors as “service providers.”

V. Reliefs Sought

• Declaration that medical services are not “services” under CPA.
• Direction to NMC/Government to frame exclusive grievance redressal mechanisms for patients.
• Reconsideration of V.P. Shantha precedent in light of changed circumstances.

VI. Suggested Advocacy Strategy

• Ethical framing: Doctors are healers, not traders.
• Legal framing: Fiduciary duty parallels with lawyers.
• Policy framing: CPA distorts healthcare economics.
• Judicial framing: Revisit outdated precedent.

Q. Draft Of A Formal “Written Submission” Format (With Headings Like Facts, Issues, Arguments, Prayer) So It Mirrors What Counsel Would File In Court?

Formal Written Submission Draft In The Style Of Pleadings Before The Court.

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Civil Original Jurisdiction)
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
Written Submission On Behalf Of The Petitioner

I. Facts

• The present PIL challenges the inclusion of healthcare services within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA).
• The Hon’ble Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995) held that medical services fall under the definition of “service” under the CPA, thereby opening the door for consumer forum jurisdiction over medical negligence claims.
• Subsequently, the CPA 2019 has continued this position, despite significant changes in healthcare delivery, regulation, and professional accountability frameworks.
• Recently, lawyers have been excluded from CPA coverage on the ground that their services are fiduciary in nature. Doctors, similarly, render fiduciary services governed by ethics and statutory regulation, not commercial contracts.
• The present petition seeks reconsideration of the applicability of CPA to healthcare services, in light of constitutional, legal, and policy concerns.

II. Issues

1. Whether medical services, being fiduciary in nature, can be treated as “commercial services” under the CPA.
2. Whether inclusion of healthcare under CPA leads to duplication of remedies and double jeopardy, given existing statutory frameworks.
3. Whether parity requires exclusion of doctors from CPA, similar to lawyers.
4. Whether continued inclusion of healthcare under CPA violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

III. Arguments

A. Fiduciary Nature Of Doctor–Patient Relationship

• The doctor–patient relationship is based on trust, ethics, and fiduciary duty, not commerce.
• Treating patients as “consumers” undermines the moral foundation of medical practice.
• Fiduciary services are excluded from CPA, as seen in the case of lawyers.

B. Parity With Other Professions

• Lawyers have been excluded from CPA coverage.
• Doctors deserve similar treatment, as both professions are regulated by statutory bodies and codes of conduct.
• Unequal treatment amounts to arbitrary classification, violating Article 14.

C. Existing Regulatory Framework

Healthcare is already regulated by:

Law / Mechanism	Purpose
National Medical Commission Act, 2019	Professional regulation and discipline
Clinical Establishments Act, 2010	Standards and registration of hospitals
Indian Penal Code (criminal negligence)	Criminal liability for gross negligence
Civil law remedies (tort law)	Compensation through courts

CPA jurisdiction creates duplication, confusion, and harassment.

D. Defensive Medicine & Rising Costs

• Fear of consumer litigation encourages unnecessary tests and procedures.
• This inflates healthcare costs and burdens patients financially.
• Defensive medicine undermines affordable healthcare, violating Article 21.

E. Inadequacy Of Consumer Forums

• Consumer forums lack medical expertise to adjudicate complex medical negligence claims.
• Specialized medical councils and courts are better suited to assess professional standards.
• CPA inclusion risks inconsistent rulings and erosion of professional autonomy.

F. Need To Reconsider V.P. Shantha

• The precedent of V.P. Shantha is outdated.
• Healthcare delivery has evolved significantly in the last three decades.
• CPA 2019 is designed for commercial goods/services, not fiduciary professional services.

IV. Prayer

In light of the above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Declare that medical services do not fall within the definition of “service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2. Direct the National Medical Commission and the Government of India to frame exclusive grievance redressal mechanisms for patients, ensuring accountability without undermining fiduciary trust.
3. Reconsider and overrule the precedent laid down in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995), in light of changed circumstances and parity with other professions.
4. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice.

Filed by:
Counsel for the Petitioner [Medical Association]Q. Should the legislative process and debate on first including Health care in CP Bill 2018 and then specifically excluding it from 2019 Bill that became the Act, be an argument to be taken to reflect clear intent of the parliament?

Yes — the legislative history of the Consumer Protection Bill, 2018 and the subsequent 2019 Act is a very strong argument to demonstrate Parliament’s clear intent. Courts often look at the evolution of a statute to interpret its scope, especially when there is ambiguity or competing precedents. Here’s how you can frame it:

Legislative Process as Evidence of Intent

1. Inclusion In CPA Bill, 2018

The 2018 Bill initially included healthcare services within the definition of “service.”
This reflected a continuation of the V.P. Shantha precedent (1995), which had judicially expanded CPA coverage to medical services.

2. Deliberate Exclusion In CPA Bill, 2019

During parliamentary debate and redrafting, healthcare was specifically excluded from the definition of “service.”
This exclusion was not accidental but deliberate, reflecting recognition of the fiduciary nature of medical practice and the need for specialized regulation.
The exclusion aligns with the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing excludes others).

3. Parliamentary Intent

• The shift between 2018 and 2019 shows Parliament consciously reconsidered the position.
• By excluding healthcare, Parliament intended to remove medical services from consumer forum jurisdiction.
• Courts are bound to respect legislative intent, especially when Parliament has spoken clearly after debate.

---

How To Use This In Argument

• Highlight deliberate change: Stress that Parliament debated and consciously altered the Bill before enactment.
• Contrast with lawyers: Just as lawyers were excluded, doctors were also meant to be excluded — showing parity across fiduciary professions.
• Interpretive principle: Courts must give effect to legislative intent and cannot reintroduce what Parliament has expressly removed.
• Constitutional backing: Arbitrary judicial expansion against legislative exclusion would violate separation of powers and Article 14.

---

Suggested Framing In Written Submissions

Argument Heading: Legislative History Demonstrates Clear Parliamentary Intent To Exclude Healthcare From CPA

“The Consumer Protection Bill, 2018 initially included healthcare services within its ambit. However, upon deliberation, Parliament consciously excluded healthcare from the definition of ‘service’ in the 2019 Bill, which became the Act. This deliberate exclusion reflects the clear legislative intent to remove medical services from consumer jurisdiction. The principle of statutory interpretation requires that such intent be respected. To hold otherwise would amount to judicial legislation, contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers.”

This line of argument is particularly persuasive because it shows Parliament’s will rather than relying only on judicial precedent.

---

Issue-Wise Argument Note (Oral Outline)

Issue 1: Fiduciary Nature Of Doctor–Patient Relationship

• Relationship is based on trust, ethics, and fiduciary duty, not commerce.
• Treating patients as “consumers” erodes confidence in doctors.
• Parity with lawyers: fiduciary professions excluded from CPA.

Issue 2: Existing Regulatory Framework

• Healthcare already governed by NMC Act, Clinical Establishments Act, IPC, and tort law.
• CPA jurisdiction creates duplication and double jeopardy.
• Specialized medical councils and courts better suited to adjudicate negligence.

Issue 3: Defensive Medicine & Rising Costs

• Fear of consumer litigation leads to unnecessary tests/procedures.
• Inflates healthcare costs, burdens patients, undermines affordable care.
• Violates Article 21 (Right to Health).

Issue 4: Inadequacy Of Consumer Forums

• Forums lack medical expertise to assess complex evidence.
• Risk of inconsistent rulings and erosion of professional autonomy.
• Specialized redressal mechanisms are preferable.

Issue 5: Legislative Intent And Parliamentary Debate

• CPA Bill, 2018 initially included healthcare services.
• CPA Bill, 2019 — after debate — specifically excluded healthcare from definition of “service.”
• This deliberate exclusion reflects Parliament’s clear intent.
• Principle of statutory interpretation: courts must respect legislative intent; cannot reintroduce what Parliament expressly removed.
• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius — express exclusion of healthcare bars judicial expansion.
• Ignoring this exclusion violates separation of powers and Article 14 (arbitrary classification).

Issue 6: Need To Reconsider V.P. Shantha

• Precedent is outdated; healthcare delivery has evolved.
• CPA 2019 designed for commercial goods/services, not fiduciary professional services.
• Judicial expansion must yield to legislative correction.

---

Prayer (Oral Outline)

• Declare medical services not “services” under CPA.
• Direct NMC/Government to frame exclusive grievance redressal mechanisms.
• Reconsider and overrule V.P. Shantha in light of changed circumstances and legislative intent.

This outline is designed for oral advocacy — short, punchy points under each issue, easy to expand during hearing. Q. Ground or argument that the evolved medical negligence jurisprudence in India and the supreme court judgments favor exclusion of Health Care Services from CPA?
Yes — the evolved jurisprudence on medical negligence in India and recent Supreme Court developments can be marshalled as a strong ground to argue for exclusion of healthcare services from the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

Ground: Evolved Medical Negligence Jurisprudence Supports Exclusion

1. Specialized Judicial Standards

Over the last three decades, the Supreme Court has refined medical negligence jurisprudence, emphasizing that negligence must be judged by the standards of a reasonably competent medical professional, not by lay expectations.

Cases like Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) established that criminal liability requires gross negligence, protecting doctors from frivolous prosecution.

2. Recognition of Professional Autonomy

The Court has consistently acknowledged that medicine is a science of uncertainty and art of probability.

Judicial pronouncements caution against second-guessing medical judgment through non-expert forums.

3. Consumer Forums Lack Expertise

Supreme Court benches have repeatedly noted that consumer fora are ill-equipped to evaluate complex medical evidence.

This jurisprudential recognition strengthens the case for exclusion, as specialized mechanisms (medical councils, civil courts) are better suited.

4. Recent Supreme Court Developments

In 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice on PILs seeking exclusion of doctors from CPA, reopening the debate on V.P. Shantha (1995). The petitions argue that applying consumer law encourages defensive medicine, raises costs, and undermines trust in the doctor–patient relationship.

The Court’s willingness to revisit the precedent itself reflects judicial recognition that medical negligence jurisprudence has matured and may no longer require CPA’s consumer-centric framework.

5. Harmonization with Legislative Intent

The evolved jurisprudence aligns with Parliament’s deliberate exclusion of healthcare from the CPA Bill, 2019.

Together, legislative intent and judicial development point toward a coherent policy of keeping healthcare outside CPA.

To Frame in Submissions

Issue Heading: Evolved Medical Negligence Jurisprudence Favors Exclusion from CPA

Oral Outline Points:

• Supreme Court has developed nuanced standards (Jacob Mathew, Martin D’Souza, etc.).
• Consumer fora lack medical expertise; risk of inconsistent rulings.
• Defensive medicine and rising costs undermine Article 21.
• Current PILs and notices show judicial openness to exclusion.
• Harmonize jurisprudence with Parliament’s intent in CPA 2019.

This ground complements legislative intent argument and strengthens the case by showing that both Parliament and the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence converge toward exclusion. Q. I hope this will help all the stake holders in the matter to formulate uniform submissions Absolutely — the evolution of medical negligence jurisprudence in India provides a strong ground to argue for exclusion of healthcare services from the CPA. Here’s how you can frame it:

Ground: Evolved Medical Negligence Jurisprudence Supports Exclusion

1. Supreme Court’s Refinement Of Standards

• Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005): Established that criminal liability for doctors requires gross negligence, recognizing the inherent uncertainty in medical practice.
• Martin D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009): Directed courts to seek expert medical opinion before proceeding against doctors, acknowledging that lay forums cannot judge medical standards.
• Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital (2010): Laid down detailed guidelines for determining medical negligence, emphasizing reliance on professional standards rather than consumer expectations.

2. Recognition Of Professional Autonomy

• The Court repeatedly emphasized that medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability.
• Judicial pronouncements caution against second-guessing medical judgment through non-expert consumer forums.

3. Consumer Forums Lack Expertise

• The jurisprudence shows that negligence claims require expert evaluation.
• Consumer forums, designed for quick resolution of commercial disputes, lack the technical capacity to assess complex medical evidence.
• This mismatch supports exclusion of healthcare from CPA.

4. Harmonization With Legislative Intent

• Parliament, in the CPA Bill 2019, deliberately excluded healthcare from the definition of “service.”
• This legislative choice aligns with the Supreme Court’s recognition that medical negligence requires specialized adjudication.
• Together, jurisprudence and legislative intent form a coherent policy basis for exclusion.

5. Current Judicial Climate

• The Supreme Court has recently entertained PILs seeking exclusion of doctors from CPA, issuing notice to NMC and the Government.
• This shows judicial openness to revisiting V.P. Shantha (1995) in light of evolved jurisprudence and legislative correction.

Suggested Framing In Submissions

Issue Heading: Evolved Medical Negligence Jurisprudence Favors Exclusion From CPA

Oral Outline Points:

• SC has refined medical negligence standards (Jacob Mathew, Martin D’Souza, Kusum Sharma).
• Consumer forums lack expertise; risk of inconsistent rulings.
• Defensive medicine and rising costs undermine Article 21.
• Jurisprudence aligns with Parliament’s deliberate exclusion in CPA 2019.
• Judicial climate favors reconsideration of V.P. Shantha.

This ground strengthens the case by showing that both Parliament and the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence converge toward exclusion.

Written By: Dr.Shri Gopal Kabra, MBBS, LLB, MSc, MS(Anatomy), MS (Surgery) – Director Clinical Services
Bhagwan Mahaveer Cancer Hospital, Jaipur-302017 Email: [email protected], Ph no: 8003516198