Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha
Supreme Court of India, 13 November 1995, 3 judges, 1996 AIR 550, 1995 SCC (6) 651, JT 1995 (8) 119
Medical services rendered for payment by doctors and hospitals, including free treatment where others pay, are 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Services free to all, and service under a contract of employment, are excluded.
Facts
High Courts and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had taken conflicting views on whether patients could bring complaints against doctors and hospitals under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Andhra Pradesh High Court and the National Commission in Cosmopolitan Hospitals held that paid medical services were covered. The Madras High Court held that diagnosis and treatment were outside the Act, except paramedical services. The National Commission had also held that treatment in Government hospitals was not covered. Appeals, special leave petitions and a writ petition challenging the Act's application to the medical profession, and its validity under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), were heard together.
Questions before the Court
- Whether, and in what circumstances, a medical practitioner renders 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- Whether services at Government and non-Government hospitals and nursing homes, paid or free, are 'service' under the Act.
- Whether the Act, as applied to medical services, is invalid under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
What the Court held
- Consultation, diagnosis and treatment by a medical practitioner for payment is 'service' under Section 2(1)(o), unless rendered free to every patient or under a contract of personal service. Disciplinary control by Medical Councils does not exclude it.
- A doctor treating a patient acts under a contract for personal services, not a contract of personal service. The exclusion covers a medical officer employed to render medical service to his employer.
- Service at a hospital, Government or not, that is free to all patients is outside the Act; a token registration fee does not change this. Where some pay and others are treated free, the free service is also 'service' and the recipient a consumer.
- Service paid for by an insurer or by an employer as a condition of service is not free of charge.
- The Consumer Fora's summary procedure suits many cases of obvious negligence; complex cases needing expert evidence can be sent to civil court. The Act is not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
Why it matters
The judgment settles conflicting decisions by bringing paid medical services within the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and sets out twelve conclusions on when doctors and hospitals render 'service'. Its distinction between services free to all and services where some patients pay decides whether free patients are consumers. It also upholds the Act against the challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“(1) Service rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner (except where the doctor renders service free of charge to every patient or under a contract of personal service), by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment, both medicinal and surgical, would fall within the ambit of 'service' as defined in Section 2(1) (o) of the Act.”
“In the absence of a relationship of master and servant between the patient and medical practitioner, the service rendered by a medical practitioner to the patient cannot be regarded as service rendered under a 'contract of personal service'. Such service is service rendered under a 'contract for personal services' and is not covered by exclusionary clause of the definition of 'service' contained in Section 2(1) (o) of the Act.”
“Service rendered at a non-Government hospital/Nursing home where charges are required to be paid by persons who are in a position to pay and persons who cannot afford to pay are rendered service free of charge would fall within the ambit of the expression 'service' as defined in Section 2(1) (o) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the service is rendered free of charge to persons who are not in a position to pay for such services.”
“The issues arising in the complaints in such cases can be speedily disposed of by the procedure that is being followed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies and there is no reason why complaints regarding deficiency in service in such cases should not be adjudicated by the Agencies under the Act. In complaints involving complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, the complainant can be asked to approach the civil court for appropriate relief.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 2(1)(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (definition of 'service')
- Section 2(1)(d), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (definition of 'consumer')
- Article 14, Constitution
- Article 19(1)(g), Constitution
Related judgments
- Follows Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1993)“as construed by this Court in Lucknow Development Authority (supra), we find no plausible reason to cut down the width of that part” (page 14)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Ors.
- Case
- Civil Appeal Nos. 688 and 689 of 1993 with connected civil appeals, special leave petitions and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 16 of 1994
- Decided
- 13 November 1995
- Bench
- Agrawal, S.C. (J), Kuldip Singh (J), Hansaria B.L. (J)
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment written by S.C. Agrawal J.
Questions on this case
3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.