In a recent landmark verdict, the Supreme Court delved into the intricacies of consumer protection laws as they relate to healthcare services. 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.

The inclusion of healthcare services within the ambit of consumer protection laws has ushered in unintended consequences, fundamentally altering the landscape of healthcare delivery. Here are some key reasons why this approach has proved to be counterproductive for society:

 Exorbitant Costs: The fear of litigation under consumer protection laws _and compassionate awards, assumed innocence of the patient has, unintendedly led to increased investigations, resulting in inflated costs often without significant change in outcomes._ Consequently, quality healthcare becomes inaccessible to economically disadvantaged individuals, perpetuating disparities in access to essential services.

 Legal Vulnerability: The specter of losing lifetime savings due to negligence claims or compassionate awards, often lacking proper legal scrutiny, not only exacerbates the financial burden on healthcare professionals but also leaves families vulnerable to unforeseen financial hardships.

 Brain Drain: Faced with the looming threat of frivolous litigation and arbitrary awards, healthcare professionals may opt to pursue alternative careers in administration, business, or law, exacerbating the shortage of skilled medical practitioners and compromising the quality of care.

 Redundant Redressal Mechanisms: Rather than creating parallel avenues for redressal through consumer protection laws, the focus should be on addressing the inefficiencies within existing legal frameworks, such as civil and criminal courts, medical boards, and councils, to streamline the resolution of disputes without burdening an already strained healthcare system.

Lessons from Western Healthcare Systems: The collapse or vulnerability of healthcare systems in the West, where similar consumer protection laws have been implemented, serves as a cautionary tale. Importing strategies without considering their contextual applicability can lead to systemic flaws and unintended consequences.

Furthermore, there is a fundamental question regarding the allocation of responsibility for citizens' health and well-being. Should it primarily rest with the individual or the state? Healthcare workers find themselves caught in the crossfire, facing blame and legal repercussions for outcomes influenced by multifaceted factors beyond their control.

It is essential to recognize that every ailment carries inherent risks, and while medical interventions aim to mitigate these risks, they cannot eliminate them entirely. Blaming healthcare providers retrospectively ignores the complexities of disease pathology and the limitations of medical science.

In conclusion, the integration of healthcare services into consumer protection laws has yielded adverse effects, undermining access to quality care, jeopardizing the livelihoods of healthcare professionals, and diverting attention from addressing systemic inefficiencies. As we navigate the complexities of healthcare regulation, a balanced approach that prioritizes accountability while safeguarding the integrity of healthcare delivery is imperative.