New Delhi: Should doctors be treated at par with lawyers under consumer law, or does the nature of medical services place them outside its commercial framework? This question reached the Supreme Court Tuesday in a PIL, arguing that doctors perform a fiduciary role equal to, if not greater than, that of lawyers.
The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices N.V. Anjaria and Joymalya Bagchi Tuesday heard a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by New Delhi-based Association of Healthcare Providers India (AHPI) seeking to exclude medical professionals from the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 2019.
The petition, filed by Advocate Vijay Kasana, argues that the current consumer-legal framework treats medical services as commercial transactions and “undermines the trust-based, fiduciary nature of the doctor-patient relationship and erodes the moral foundation of medical practice”.
With notice being issued on the plea, the top court is set to examine if the Centre and the National Medical Commission can exclude medical professionals from the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and whether consumer forums should continue to entertain complaints against them.
Quest for parity
A primary driver for this petition is the legal precedent set for advocates. On May 14, 2024, the Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers vs. D.K. Gandhi held that the legislature never intended to include professionals within the ambit of the CPA, 2019, and specifically exempted lawyers.
The AHPI argues that medical professionals deserve the same exemption, as they meet the criteria established in that judgment. The association contends that medical professionals operate under an “even greater fiduciary duty” than lawyers, making their inclusion in consumer laws constitutionally unsound. The PIL stresses that a profession requiring advanced education and specialized mental work “cannot be treated equally or on a par with a businessman or a trader”.
Also Read: Govt control has weakened Indian consumers by taking away their right to sue
Route to the top court
The Association of Healthcare Providers India’s journey to the Supreme Court follows several attempts to seek relief in other forums.
In May 2024, the AHPI sent a formal representation to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare seeking intervention to exclude doctors from consumer laws, citing the D.K. Gandhi judgment—five days after the judgment was pronounced.
The AHPI initially filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. However, it was withdrawn on 29 May, 2025, after the court suggested the matter should be filed as a PIL.
On a subsequent PIL being filed before the Delhi High Court, it was dismissed on 30 July, 2025, noting that the 1995 Supreme Court judgment in Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha (which brought doctors under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) remains “binding precedent” that can only be revisited by a larger bench of the Supreme Court.
Following this hierarchy of remedies, the AHPI has now approached the Supreme Court to reconsider the V.P. Shantha precedent.
Also Read: Healthcare isn’t a service in new bill but IMA says doctors not fully protected yet
‘Defensive medicine’ and rising healthcare costs
The petition highlights how the fear of consumer litigation has forced doctors to practice “defensive medicine”. This environment compels professionals to “order unnecessary investigations, procedures, and referrals primarily to protect themselves legally rather than to benefit the patient”.
The AHPI submits that this practice results in “escalated healthcare costs for patients” and transforms a relationship built on empathy into one that is purely transactional. The PIL notes that medical litigation has instilled a culture of fear among medical students and aspirants, “ultimately affecting the quality of medical education” and patient care.
A major argument in the PIL is that the medical profession is already strictly regulated by special laws. The association states that doctors are governed by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Code of Medical Ethics Regulations, 2002, which provide mechanisms for addressing professional misconduct.
The petition argues: “Indian Medical Council Act 1956 being a special act will prevail over consumer protection act so far as the conduct of doctors are concerned”.
They further contend that consumer adjudication involves summary procedures that are “unsuitable to examine complicated issues requiring expertise, such as medical negligence cases”.
The AHPI points to international practices, noting that many common law countries exclude medical practitioners from consumer protection laws because the profession is “sui generis” (unique). For instance, the petitioners cited the Netherlands and Finland, where medical dissatisfaction is handled through expert boards rather than commercial consumer forums.
The petition concludes that for India to align with international best practices, it must exclude healthcare from the CPA and allow special medical laws to be the “sole authority to adjudicate any dispute”.
Also, a petitioner, Dr Alexander Thomas, cites his personal experience in the petition. After completing his postgraduate specialisation from Christian Medical College, Vellore, he joined Bangalore Baptist Hospital, a charitable mission institution committed to serving the underprivileged.
The plea states that in 1996, he was named in a Consumer Forum case related to the management of a road traffic accident victim. Although the case was ultimately dismissed, “the prolonged and distressing litigation deeply demoralized his team and himself. The psychological toll was immense, and he seriously considered leaving the profession. That experience convinced him that litigation is not the path to justice or healing in healthcare”.
Instead, he dedicated his life, as per the plea, to placing the patient at the centre of his profession by building systems that are safer, more communicative, and responsive to patient needs.
The petitioners also stated that “the Consumer Protection Act, in practice, has failed to achieve its foundational objective of swift redressal, as evidenced by the significant and persisting backlog of cases and prolonged delays, often extending over several years”.
The patient-doctor relationship, they said, occupies a singular and sacrosanct space within society, characterised by mutual trust, empathy, and compassion. However, since the inclusion of the medical profession under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, this relationship has “regrettably become transactional, with patients perceiving doctors increasingly as commercial service providers rather than as caregivers”.
(Edited by Varnika Dhawan)