A review petition has been filed challenging the Supreme Court’s November 7 decision that declined to reconsider the 1995 landmark judgment in Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha. This judgment had brought medical professionals under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which was re-enacted as the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Key Grounds for Review
The Medico-Legal Society of India, which filed the review, emphasized the far-reaching impact of the decision on the medical profession and public welfare. It argued that the refusal to revisit the 1995 judgment disregarded critical concerns raised by healthcare professionals.
The petition raised the following issues:
- Strained Doctor-Patient Relationships:
The petition contended that doctors now view patients as potential litigants, which has created anxiety and hindered medical decision-making. It further highlighted the societal consequences of doctors hesitating to take risks due to litigation fears, potentially worsening healthcare delivery. - Nature of Medical Practice:
The review underscored the unpredictable nature of medical outcomes. It argued that unlike other services, medical care often involves life-and-death decisions under uncertainty, making the profession uniquely challenging.
“Textbook recommendations are statistical, not guarantees. The same treatment may result in cure, no effect, complications, or even death,” the petition stated. The increasing stress from litigation was cited as a major factor leading to suicides and a mass exodus of medical professionals.
- Principles of Natural Justice:
The Medico-Legal Society of India argued that its application for intervention during the original hearing was not heard, violating principles of natural justice. It claimed that excluding medical associations from deliberations on such a significant issue amounted to a “miscarriage of justice” against the medical fraternity and the general public. - Two-Judge Bench Reference:
The petition pointed out that the November 7 order failed to provide legal reasoning for refusing the reference made by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which had sought reconsideration of the 1995 judgment.
Historical Background
The 1995 VP Shantha judgment classified medical professionals as “service providers” under the Consumer Protection Act, enabling patients to file claims for medical negligence. Recently, in May 2023, a two-judge bench observed that the legal profession was not covered under the Act and had recommended a similar reconsideration for medical professionals.
However, a three-judge bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and KV Vishwanathan, dismissed this reference, stating that the medical profession could not be equated with the legal profession.
Implications of Review Petition
The review petition has reignited the debate on balancing consumer rights and medical accountability with the need to maintain trust and morale within the medical profession. The Supreme Court’s decision on this petition could have significant implications for both healthcare professionals and patients across India.
Lawcutor 