Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
589 views

Case Comment2

This case clarified that medical services fall under the definition of "services" in the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. It established that the relationship between patients and medical professionals is contractual in nature. The Supreme Court held that patients can file complaints in consumer courts against doctors or hospitals for medical negligence or deficiency in services. While medical services provided for free in government hospitals are excluded, private hospitals and independent doctors are covered under the Act regardless of whether fees are charged. This landmark judgment benefited patients seeking redressal for medical negligence or deficiency in services through the low-cost consumer protection system.

Uploaded by

Soumiki Ghosh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
589 views

Case Comment2

This case clarified that medical services fall under the definition of "services" in the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. It established that the relationship between patients and medical professionals is contractual in nature. The Supreme Court held that patients can file complaints in consumer courts against doctors or hospitals for medical negligence or deficiency in services. While medical services provided for free in government hospitals are excluded, private hospitals and independent doctors are covered under the Act regardless of whether fees are charged. This landmark judgment benefited patients seeking redressal for medical negligence or deficiency in services through the low-cost consumer protection system.

Uploaded by

Soumiki Ghosh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

CASE COMMENT

ON

Indian Medical Association v. V P Shantha AIR 1996 SC 550: (1995) 6 SCC 651

Introduction:

The case of Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha 1 in the year 1995 before the Supreme
Court of India clarified medical profession as a kind of ‘service’ defined under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986. This established the fact that the relation between patients and medical
professionals are a type of contractual relation. Patients sustaining injuries or negligence
during the treatment can sue doctors in consumer protection courts and claim for damages.

Background:

There were a lot of cases regarding Medical Negligence, and it was not clear whether medical
services are services under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not and whether hospital or
doctor or medical practitioner is within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or
not. Also, there had been contrasting and conflicting decisions regarding this issue as
delivered by various High Courts and other lower courts. Supreme Court faced very big flow
of SLPs regarding this issue. Here in the PIL, a writ was filed in Supreme Court under Article
32 of Constitution of India, to decide about the Scope and Jurisdiction of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 with regards to doctor patient relationship.

Analysis:

The decision of the Apex Court in this case cleared that Consumer Protection Act of 1986 is
applicable to medical professionals and their services. In the judgment, the Supreme Court
scrutinized the liability of medical professionals and medical establishments like hospitals
including public and private. Supreme Court held that the definition of services in section
2(1) (o) of the Act can be divide into three parts- the main part, the inclusionary part and the
exclusionary part. The main part is explanatory in nature. It defines service to mean service
of any kind which is available to the potential users. The inclusionary part mainly includes
the provision of facilities associated with banking, insurance, board or lodging or both
housing construction, financing, transport, supply of electrical or other energy, processing,
entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information. The exclusionary
part does not include rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal
services. The inclusive part of the definition of service isn't applicable. The court hereby held
that medical services will be treated as services within Section 2(1) (o) of the Act and the
potential user of these services will be called as consumer or buyer of medical services.

Three broad categories were made under which nature of the services of doctors/hospital can
be determined:-
1
AIR 1996 SC 550: (1995) 6 SCC 651
a. Services rendered free of charge to everybody.

b. Charges paid by all users.

c. Charges are required to be paid by all person except those, who cannot afford (services are
rendered free)

It can be explained from the above that the liability in first two categories like when services
are rendered free of charge there is no service rendered under Section 2(1) (o) of the Act
hence excluded by virtue of exclusionary clause of the Section. Token money will be also be
treated as no consideration paid. But it will not include independent doctors who are
rendering service free of charge. And in second category if an individual is paying
consideration it will come under the purview of the Act as medical services are services and
consideration is paid to avail them.

The court decided that since patients, who are availing services free of charge, belonging to
third category are beneficiary as patients who're paying consideration in that category are,
actually, paying for non-paying patients too. So being beneficiary they're within scope of the
Act. So they are also called as consumer under Section 2(1) (d) of the Act. The judgement
also mentioned that

1. Medical Services are treated within the purview of “services” under Section 2(1) (o) of the
Act. It is not a type of contract related to personal service as there is absence of master
servant relationship. But contract of service in Section 2(1) (o) cannot be restricted to
contracts for employment of domestic servants only.

2. Medical Services rendered by hospital/nursing home free of charge are not covered under
Section 2(1) (o) of the Act.

3. Medical Services rendered by independent Doctor free of charge will come under Section
2(1) (o) of the Act.

4. Medical Services rendered against payment of consideration will also come under the Act.

5. Also when third party pays the payment of consideration for a medical service that is
treated under the scope of this Act.

6. There are some hospitals where some people are charged and some are exempted from
charging. This is because of their inability of affording such services. These kind of services
will be treated as consumer under of Section 2(1) (d) of the Act.

Conclusion:
This judgment became the most beneficial to those who were affected by medical negligence
and medical services and bringing those within the purview of Consumer Protection Act,
1986 enabled consumer to receive more speedy and cheap justice. This case also separated
the concepts of contract for service and contract of service, with respect to practice and
profession of medicine. System of liability that was established by this isn't appropriate in
matters where patients aren't treated as consumer even in government hospital availing
services free of charge. It is question of common conscience and equity and natural justice as
anyone who is availing services in government hospital are not economically sound that is
why they are availing services in government hospital at the very first place. It is point of
reconsideration. Hospital rendering services free of charge are outside the ambit of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As some charitable trust do not have profit motive they can
be sued in civil case but not in Consumer court. This is how this judgement became the
pioneer in establishing patients as consumer and practicing of medicine as a service which
can essentially be bought financially.

You might also like