IJERHS
Manoj M Ramugade et al
REVIEW ARTICLE
Consumer Protection Act: Is It a Boon or a Bane for the
Medical Fraternity?
1
Manoj M Ramugade, 2Praneeta Kamble, 3Rasika A Naik, 4Sandeep Pimpale
ABSTRACT
The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) was enacted in 1986 in
India with the prime objective of protecting consumers from
being harassed or cheated regarding any goods or services for
the consideration they were promised or paid and to provide
quicker and simpler access for redressal of grievances. After
the landmark case of the Indian Medical Association vs V.P.
Shantha and others in 1995, the medical profession was
covered within the ambit of the CPA, and health care providers
were treated as service providers for consideration. It could be
a boon to the patient being a consumer and bane to the medical
professional for being considered as a service provider than
as a life saver.
Keywords: Consumer, Consumer protection act, Medical
professional, Service.
How to cite this article: Ramugade MM, Kamble P, Naik RA,
Pimpale S. Consumer Protection Act: Is It a Boon or a Bane for the
Medical Fraternity? Int J Educ Res Health Sci 2017;3(3):170-173.
Source of support: Nil
Conflict of interest: None
INTRODUCTION
Medicine was considered as noble profession and medical
practitioners as demigods until the enactment of the CPA
in 1986. The CPA was enacted to provide for better protec-
tion of the interest of consumers and to make provision
for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other
authorities for the settlement of consumer's disputes
and the matters connected therewith. The Act provides
machinery in the form of three-tier system of consumer
forums where consumers can file a complaint against
the supplier or service provider and compensation is
1
Associate Professor, 2Additional Professor, 3,4
Assistant
Professor
1,3
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics
Government Dental College and Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
2,4
Department of Periodontics, Nair Hospital Dental College
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Corresponding Author: Manoj M Ramugade, Associate
Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and
Endodontics, Government Dental College and Hospital
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, Phone: +919869159131, e-mail:
manojmds05@yahoo.co.in
170
10.5005/jp-journals-10056-0062
awarded for the hardships they suffer. The Act enshrines
the rights of the consumer, such as Right to safety, Right
to be informed, Right to be heard, Right to choose, Right
to seek redressal, and Right to consumer education.1-4
Three terms strategically mentioned in the CPA
are Consumer, Service, and Deficiency. The word
“Consumer” is defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the CPA,
1986 as “Consumer means any person who (a) buys
any goods for a consideration and includes any user
of such goods but does not include a person who obtains
such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, (b)
Hires or avails of any services.”5 The term “Service” is
defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act as “Service means
service of any description which is made available to
potential users but does not include the rendering of
any service free of charge or under contract of per-
sonal service,”5 whereas Section 2(1)(g) has defined
“Deficiency” as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or
inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of perfor-
mance, i.e., required to be maintained by or under any
law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to
be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or
otherwise in relation to any service. The categories of ser-
vices include Banking, Financing, Insurance, Transport,
Processing, Supply of Electrical or other Energy, Lodging,
Housing, Construction, Entertainment, Amusement,
News, or Information.5
From the definitions of these terms, one could easily
interpret that CPA is essentially concerned with protection
of the rights of consumers against the business of selling
faulty goods and/or deficiency in services. In 1993, the
CPA was amended as per need of time and the Forums or
Courts have widened the scope of this Act through their
judgments. The objective of the CPA is to safeguard and
protect the rights of the patients (the consumers) who form
the vulnerable part of the society. The Act was applicable
mainly for private consumer complaints and to a certain
extent to certain educational activities and statutory
functions. However, in the case of the Indian Medical
Association vs VP Shantha and others,6 a controversy was
raised as to whether CPA is to be made applicable to the
noble profession like medical profession?
Numerous contradicting and conflicting verdicts
were given by different Forums and Courts regarding
this matter. Finally, the Supreme Court (SC) resolved this

Consumer Protection Act: Is It a Boon or a Bane for the Medical Fraternity?
dilemma by the Special Leave Petition in Indian Medical
Association vs VP Shantha and others6 through the bench
of three Judges. In this case the SC held that the term
“Service” defined in the CPA, 1986, should also be made
applicable to medical profession as medical practitioners
provide services to patients in the form of consultation,
diagnosis, treatment of medical and surgical type, and fall
within the ambit of the term "Service." The SC also cleared
that the doctor–patient relationship is with certain degree
of mutual confidence and trust, and therefore, services
rendered by the doctor can be considered as services of
personal nature. The contract between doctor and patient
cannot be treated as contract of personal service but it is
a contract for services and the service provided by the
doctor is covered by the part of the definition of Service
contained in Section 2(1)(o) of the CPA.
The SC also stated that, when medical treatment is
provided free of charge to all the patients in a hospital,
such patient will not be eligible to file a complaint under
CPA as a consumer, as there is no monetary consideration
for providing such services. The payment taken only for
registration purpose will not alter the position. However,
doctors/hospitals which give free of charge services to
some patients and also provide services on payment to
other patients will be liable under CPA. Similarly, when
such charges are paid by Insurance Company under
medical policy or the employer of a patient, such circum-
stances could make such patient a “Consumer” under the
CPA and so these patients are entitled to file complaints
under the Act for medical negligence.
After this unexpected decision of the SC, there was
uproar in the medical fraternity with strong negativism
and anguish among the doctors. The SC therefore, cleared
that CPA provides a faster and cheaper remedy as against
the ordinary Civil Courts and does not lay down any
new principle of liability to the medical profession. It is
only law of negligence for the purpose of determining
medical negligence based on Law of Tort. Thus, there
should not be any reason for the medical fraternity to
bear animosity for CPA.
Arguments against CPA from the Medical
Fraternity
• Doctors resist CPA because it makes them accountable
legally, morally, and socially.
• Availability of quick and cheaper remedy will result
in frivolous complaints by rival colleagues or others
damaging the reputation of the doctors/hospitals
for extracting money, which would result in fear of
increasing false litigations against doctors.
• The CPA by its origin is social welfare legislation,
drafted in favor of consumers and previously was not
formulated to include services rendered to patients
International Journal of Education and Research in Health Sciences, July-September 2017;3(3):170-173
IJERHS
in medical profession. As a doctor–patient relation-
ship is more than customer–trade relationship, CPA
for the medical profession would totally disturb the
doctor–patient relationship.
• Defensive medical practice will be adopted by doctors
to save oneself against liability under CPA. For this
purpose, more investigations would be advised to
patients and more paperwork will be required for
doctors, ultimately increasing overall cost and time
for the treatment.
• Trials in Consumer Forums are conducted by Judges
who may not be trained in medical science or lack the
medical knowledge, and therefore, they may not know
or understand the gravity of circumstances or medical
status of the patient in the particular medicolegal case
and may not be able to give right judgment or it may
be ill-conceived.
• To get indemnity insurance, doctors might develop
tendency to charge more to ensure themselves free
from the danger of paying compensation to patient.
• Negative publicity of such medicolegal cases through
media and press would hamper the professional and
personal life of the doctor even though the doctor
is not at fault. This leads to loss of confidence and
morale of that doctor and unfortunately may make the
people to lose their faith in that doctor and medical
profession.
Reasons to include Medical Profession in the
Ambit of CPA
Doctors are unhappy and apprehensive for inclusion
of the medical profession under CPA due to above-
mentioned grounds but various reasons exhibit its
need:
• Growing unexpected incidences of indiscipline and
medical negligence in medical profession
• Commercialization of the medical profession and inci-
dences of corrupt practices, such as cut practice and
commission taking for referring patient for diagnosis
and treatment
• No control on fees of doctors, especially specialists of
reputed hospitals
• The National body constituted by medical profession-
als, being professional colleagues, would likely stand
in favor of their fraternity colleagues
• The doctor–patient relationship is a contract where
patient pays for the services and there should be
an obligation to compensate in case of deficiency in
services
• CPA assured that, mere error of judgment or diagnosis
does not make the doctor liable under the Act
171
Manoj M Ramugade et al
• To raise the standard of medical care, strict rules and
regulations must be applied to the medical profession,
which can be implemented through the CPA
• There is no specific law to determine medical negli-
gence, hence there is need for a separate law
Landmark Judgments in Case of Medical
Negligence
Bolam vs Friern Hospital Management Committee
This case is known as The Bolam’s test. Mr Bolam7 was
advised electroconvulsive therapy for his mental illness.
However, he was not warned about the risks of fractures
involved in the treatment. There were two schools of
thoughts regarding treatment of such illness. The doctor
preferred one school of thought of using relaxant drugs
due to which the patient had dislocation of both hip joints
and fracture of pelvis. The SC in Bolam’s case implied that
a doctor is not liable for choosing one line of treatment
over another at that time as it was proper in diagnosis and
treatment, if they are medically accepted by responsible
body of medical fraternity.
C Sivakumar vs Jalin Arthur and Anr
The complainant, a 23-year-old boy, approached Dr John
for blockage in passage of urine, who took him to another
clinic for the operation. After the operation, there was
excessive bleeding from the penis and ultimately patient
had to be shifted to Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate
Medical Education and Research (JIPMER) Hospital. The
hospital authorities reported the matter to the police. At
JIPMER Hospital, the patient’s major portion of penis
was excised and only a small stump was left behind,
resulting in the patient passing urine through an artifi-
cially made opening. Patient had become permanently
impotent. Therefore, Rs. 8 lakhs as compensation was
awarded to the complainant by the respondent doctor
by the forum.8
Tarun Kumar Pramanik vs Kunal Chakraborty
and others
The complainant alleged that during the operation of left
inguinal hernia his left testis was removed negligently
without his consent and due to which he has become
handicapped. The State Commission based on produced
evidences and opinion of expert held that the removal of
testis was done to avoid spread of gangrenous infection
and the operation was done with due care and skill and
had not resulted in any handicap. Complaint was held
to be vexatious and complainant was made liable to pay
cost to opposite party.9
172
Poonam Verma vs Ashwin Patel and Ors
A respondent doctor was registered as homeo-
pathic medical practitioner and entitled to practice in
Homeopathy only. He prescribed an allopathic medicine
to the patient and the patient died. The doctor was held
to be negligent and liable to compensate the deceased’s
wife for the death of her husband on the ground that the
doctor was entitled to practice in homeopathy only and
was under a statutory duty not to enter the other field
of medicine. Since he entered into a prohibited field and
prescribed the allopathic medicine to the patient causing
the death, his conduct amounted to negligence per se
actionable in civil law.10
Mrs. Shantaben Muljibhai Patel and Ors vs Breach
Candy Hospital and Research Centre and Ors
The National Commission dismissed the complaint filed
by the wife and two sons of the deceased Mr MM Patel
for an amount of Rs. 1.02 crores toward the death of the
patient who died in Breach Candy Hospital alleging
negligence by hospital doctors and staff. The deceased
had undergone a bypass surgery in 1988 when the mitral
valve was replaced. Deterioration of 15% ejection fraction
(pumping efficiency) was found in 1996. An operation
was performed successfully. While undertaking post-
operative treatment, there is a chance of extubation of
the endotracheal tube in 8.5 to 13% cases, as mentioned
in medical literature. In this case, sudden extubation
occurred and it was immediately noticed by on-duty
nurse. An expert doctor was called but intubation was
found difficult and the patient died due to cardiac arrest.
Commission held that the deceased was a high-risk case
and such eventual accident cannot be controlled. Every
surgical operation is attended by risk and if something
went wrong, conclusion of deficiency in service cannot
be drawn. Reasonable care was exercised by the nursing
staff and the hospital was equipped with the necessary
equipment and doctors performed their duties to the best
of their ability with due care and caution. There was no
negligence or deficiency found in the service provided
in this case.11
CONCLUSION
The debate over the application of CPA to the medical
profession is endless and the reality is that although
medical practice is for a noble and selfless cause, CPA is
now an indispensable and integral part of the profession
and the fraternity. Hence, to avoid the legal issues and
its complexities, due diligence in patient care, diagnosis,
and treatment with appropriate maintenance of patient
records is mandatory. Friendly clinical environment,

Consumer Protection Act: Is It a Boon or a Bane for the Medical Fraternity?
genuine concern toward patient’s health and confident,
open, sympathetic dialogue will usually resolve majority
of such legal tangles.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors would like to thank Dr Dharna B Parekh, Pinky
Dental Care, dental surgeon for her valuable support in
writing this article.
REFERENCES
1. Reddy, KSN. Medical laws and ethics. In: Suguna Devi K,
editor. The essentials of forensic medicine and toxicology.
28th ed. Hyderabad: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers;
2009. p. 49-50.
2. Consumer Protection Act and Medical Profession. 2009. [cited
2009 Sep 26]. Available from: http://www.medindia.net/
doctors/cpa/CPA.asp.
International Journal of Education and Research in Health Sciences, July-September 2017;3(3):170-173
IJERHS
3. Prakash C, Chaudhary RSK, Bala R, Shrivastav B, Rai A,
Roham. Consumer Protection Act (CPA/ COPRA) Related
to Medical Profession. JIAFM 2007 Jul;29(3):39-41.
4. Surgery. 2009. [cited 2009 Sep 26]. Available from: http://
www.aiclindia/case classified/Surgery.asp.
5. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Available
from: http://www.ncdrc.nic.in/bare_acts/Consumer%
20Protection%20Act-1986.html.
6. Indian Medical Association vs V.P. Shantha and others, 1996,
AIR 550, 1995 SCC (6) 651.
7. Bolam vs Friern Hospital Management Committee, 1957.
1 WLR 582 per McNair J.
8. Debbarma J, Gupta N, Aggarwal NK. Consumer protection
act – blessing or curse to medical profession? Delhi Psychiatry
J 2009 Oct;12(2):302-305.
9. Tarun Kumar Pramanik vs Dr. Kunal Chakraborty and others,
1995(2) CPR 545(WE SCDRC)
10. Saghir AS, Poonam Verma vs. Ashwin Patel and Ors., 1996.
4 SCC 332.
11. Mrs Shantaben Muljibhai Patel and Ors vs Breach Candy
Hospital and Research Centre and Ors. I., 2005. CPJ 10 (NC).
173