In a recent landmark verdict, the Supreme Court delved into the intricacies of Consumer Protection Act as they relate to services provided by professionals. Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal underscored the fundamental purpose of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, re-enacted in 2019, emphasizing its role in safeguarding consumers against unfair trade practices. However, they also highlighted a crucial distinction: the Act was never intended to encompass professions or services provided by professionals, a point long contended by the medical community.

Now the medical community feels that the arguments on basis of which lawyers are exempted from the Consumer Protection Act in this judgment are also sufficient to keep doctors out of the purview of this act.

In the case related to inclusion of lawyers in the ambit of the CP Act 2019,the Bench Observed-

There was not a whisper in the statement of objects and reasons either of the CP Act, 1986 or 2019 to include the Professions or the Services provided by the Professionals like Advocates, Doctors etc. within the purview of the Act. It is very well accepted proposition of the fact that Professionals could not be called Businessmen or Traders, nor Clients or Patients be called Consumers. It is also required to be borne in mind that the terms ‘business’ or ‘trade’ having a commercial aspect involved, could not be used interchangeably with the term ‘Profession’ which normally would involve some branch of learning or science. Profession as such would require knowledge of an advanced type in a given field of learning or science, or learning gained by a prolonged course of specialized study.

 As per Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition, “Profession” means “a vocation requiring advanced education and training; especially one of the three traditional Professions- Law, Medicine and the Ministry.” “Professional” means “someone who belongs to a learned profession or whose occupation requires a high level of training and proficiency.”  According to Rupert M. Jackson and John L. Powell, the Occupations which are regarded as Professions have four characteristics, viz.,

The bench on doctors-

On the issue of inclusion of doctors in the ambit of CP Act as decided by the SC in the IMA VS VP Shanta case the bench observed-

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the decision of the three- judge bench, in case of Indian Medical Association vs. V.P Shantha (supra) deserves to be revisited and considered by a larger bench. We, therefore refer the matter to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for His Lordship’s consideration.

Lawyers and Doctors as professionals-

Medical community feels that the broad submissions made by the learned Senior Counsels in the case related to inclusion of legal services in the ambit of Consumer Protection Act apply to doctors too.

Here,we have tried to compare submissions made by counsels of lawyers in the case with the views of medical community about medical profession-

01. The Advocates Act, 1961 is a law dealing exclusively with the legal profession which provides a robust mechanism laying down professional standards for compliance and for determining professional misconduct.

Indian Medical Council act 1956, NMC act 2019 and various state medical council acts dealing exclusively with the medical profession  provide a robust mechanism laying down professional standards for compliance and for determining professional misconduct.

02. The legal profession is a noble profession and not a business or trade. It is an extension of system of justice, and the success of judicial process depends on the independence of the Bar. Hence, its autonomy is needed to preserve the democracy and to keep judiciary strong.

The medical profession is also noble profession and not a business or trade. It is an extension of system created by the creator of this world and the success of medical procedure depends on the conditions in which doctors have to work. As rightly said by Hon’ble SC in the Martin F. D' Souza vs Mohd. Ishfaq judgement  -A surgeon with shaky hands under fear of legal action cannot perform a successful operation and a quivering physician cannot administer the end-dose of medicine to his patient.

03. A unique feature which distinguishes an Advocate from other professional is that an Advocate has a duty to the court and his peers, in addition to his duty to the client. He is not mere a mouthpiece but he has to exercise his own judgment for upholding the interest of his client by all fair, legal and reasonable means, and by being respectful to the court.

A unique feature which distinguishes a doctor from other professional is that a doctor has a duty to the  society, state and his peers, in addition to his duty to the patient. He is not mere a robot controlled by AI  but he has to exercise his own judgment for upholding the interest of his patient by all fair, ethical and reasonable means, and by being respectful to the patient.

04. The Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils are invested with the disciplinary powers. An error of judgment or mere negligence may not be a professional misconduct. In any case, the professional misconduct which subsumes cases of negligence, which is covered by the special law i.e., Advocates Act, 1961.

The National Medical Commission and State Medical  Councils are invested with the disciplinary powers. An error of judgment or mere negligence may not be a professional misconduct. In any case, the professional misconduct which subsumes cases of negligence, which is covered by the special law i.e., IMC act 1956 and various state council acts.

05. The Advocates Act being special law would prevail over the CP Act so far as the conduct of Advocates are concerned.

The IMC act 1956 and State council acts  being special laws  would prevail over the CP Act so far as the conduct of doctors  are concerned.

06. The law of negligence recognizes that a professional would be held liable in a civil action for negligence and includes professionals of varied fields who possess special skill in that profession generally.

The law of negligence recognizes that a professional(including doctors) would be held liable in a civil action for negligence and includes professionals of varied fields who possess special skill in that profession generally.

07. The legal professionals in United Kingdom can be sued for negligence by a way of regular civil action, however they would not be liable under the law dealing with consumer rights for trade/commercial activities.

The medical professionals in United Kingdom can be sued for negligence by a way of regular civil action, however they would not be liable under the law dealing with consumer rights for trade/commercial activities.

08. Allowing consumer protection law to apply to the Advocates would open floodgates of unnecessary litigations and it would not be in the larger public interest to do so. It would also lead to multiple proceedings before multiple forums, reagitation of issues decided by a judicial body including the Supreme Court with potentially conflicting decisions.

Allowing consumer protection law to apply to the doctors has opened  floodgates of unnecessary litigations and it’s  not  in the larger public interest to do so. It has led to multiple proceedings before multiple forums, reagitation of issues decided by a judicial body including the Supreme Court with potentially conflicting decisions.

09.The summary nature of proceeding under the consumer protection law with its accent on inexpensive and speedy remedy (though enacted with laudable objects for protection of consumers against trade and commercial activities), can become an easy tool for disgruntled litigants to knock at the doors of the consumer forums against the advocates. It would lead to speculative/vexatious claims, rather than seeking relief in respect of bona fide grievances against professional misconduct.

The summary nature of proceeding under the consumer protection law with its accent on inexpensive and speedy remedy (though enacted with laudable objects for protection of consumers against trade and commercial activities), has already become an easy tool for disgruntled litigants to knock at the doors of the consumer forums against the doctors. It has led to speculative/vexatious claims, rather than seeking relief in respect of bona fide grievances against professional misconduct.

10. The legal profession is recognized as sui generis and stands out among other profession due to its distinctive nature, where the lawyers often find themselves operating in an environment where control is elusive. Unlike many other professions where practitioners may have a higher degree of control over their surroundings, the lawyers frequently navigate through complex legal landscapes shaped by diverse factors.

The medical profession is recognized as sui generis and stands out among other profession due to its distinctive nature, where the doctors  often find themselves operating in an environment where control is elusive. Unlike many other professions where practitioners may have a higher degree of control over their surroundings, the doctors frequently navigate through complex medical  landscapes shaped by diverse factors.

11.One of the primary distinctions of legal profession is the inherent complexity of legal issues. Lawyers must grapple with intricate statutes, case laws and regulatory frameworks, which often lack definitive answers. Legal disputes frequently involve multiple parties with conflicting interests, further complicating the matters. Unlike some other professions where problems may have more straightforward solutions, the lawyers often face ambiguity and uncertainty in their work, making control over outcomes elusive.

One of the primary distinctions of medical profession is the inherent complexity of medical issues. Doctors must grapple with critical, complex and emergency cases and which often lack definitive answers. Medical conditions frequently involve multiple organ systems  or co morbidities further complicating the matters. Unlike some other professions where problems may have more straightforward solutions, the doctors often face ambiguity and uncertainty in their work, making control over outcomes elusive.

12.The adversarial dynamics have an element of unpredictability, as outcomes depend not only on the lawyer’s skill and knowledge but also on the strategies employed by opposing counsel and the decisions of judges.

The  dynamics of a human body  have an element of unpredictability, as outcomes depend not only on the doctor’s skill and knowledge but also on the patients inherent ability to fight with the disease, compliance, quality of drugs and implants used, the support from family and society, co morbidities, his financial condition, insurance coverage etc.

13.Lawyers are bound by ethical and professional obligations that constrain their autonomy and control over their work. Adherence to the codes of conduct, client confidentiality, and obligations to the court limit the freedom of lawyers to act solely in their own interest or according to their preferences.

Doctors are bound by ethical and professional obligations that constrain their autonomy and control over their work. Adherence to the codes of conduct, patient confidentiality, and obligations to the state and  insurance companies  limit the freedom of doctors to act solely in their own interest or according to their preferences.

14. Unlike any other profession, where professionals are in control of their surrounding fully, legal profession is the sole profession, where advocates have no control over their environment. The environment they work in is controlled by the presiding Judge.

Unlike any other profession, where professionals are in control of their surrounding fully, medical profession is the sole profession, where doctors have no control over their environment. 

15.The Bar Council of India Rules prescribe at least four sets of duty that a lawyer has to oblige, viz., Duty to the Court, Duty to the Client, Duty to Opponent and Duty to Colleagues, in no particular order. These duties are sometimes conflicting in nature, however whenever a conflict arises, the duty to court is considered to be paramount.

The Medical Council of India’s  Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics rules 2002  for registered medical practitioners,  prescribes at least four sets of duty that a doctor has to oblige, viz., Duty to the patient, Duty to the state, Duty to Community and Duty to Colleagues. These duties are sometimes conflicting in nature, however whenever a conflict arises, the duty to patient is considered to be paramount except in rare instances.

16.Unlike the medical profession, where scientific standards exist to decide the standard of care, there is no universal standard of care or objective test that exists or can be prescribed as the threshold in the case of legal profession to adjudicate upon the question of abdication of duty to care.

Unlike the lawyers profession, where lawyers have to work in a fixed environment with fixed set of rules with unlimited time to execute their work doctors have to work in difficult conditions with different aspirations of patients with different treatment outcome even with absolutely same standard of care.

17. Distinguishing the decision of this Court in Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha & Others, it was sought to be submitted that there is a fundamental difference between the practice of law and the practice of medicine, as also the difference in the nature of professional-client relationship. The complexity of legal issues, and the diversity of legal contexts also would take the legal services rendered by the Advocates outside the purview of the services defined under the CP Act.

Its most humbly sought to be submitted that there is no fundamental difference between the practice of law and the practice of medicine, as also there is hardly any  difference in the nature of professional-client relationship. The complexity of medical  issues, and the diversity of medical contexts also would take the medical  services rendered by the doctors  outside the purview of the services defined under the CP Act.