Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Consumer Protection Act 1986 was enacted for superior protection of the interest of consumers.
Consumer Protection Act forced strict liability on a manufacturer in case of the supply of faulty goods by him and strict liability on a service provider in case of shortage in rendering his services.
To safeguard the interests and rights of consumers, quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be set up at the district, state and central levels.
This Act applies to the whole of India except the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
It applies to all goods, services and inequitable trade practices unless specified and exempted by the Central Government
It covers all sectors, private, public or co-operative
This Act was replaced by the ‘Consumer Protection Act 2019’ which came into force on 24th July 2020.
Whether doctors be kept out of the Consumer Protection Act?
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled that advocates cannot be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for deficiency in service.
The Court also indicated that its 1995 decision that held medical professionals accountable under the Act may need to be revisited.
It suggested that the definition of the term ‘services’ under the Act, which includes the medical sector, be re-examined.
The issue will be placed before a larger Bench
Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha was a landmark case which decided that doctors, medical professionals, and hospitals do come under the Consumer Protection Act as service providers.
Doctors are highly qualified professionals who provide a service to the people. They are highly specialised.
This cannot be equated with any other [profession] because human bodies react differently in different situations.
A lot of work and research goes into medical practice. Many surgeries are high tech. Patients have to be carefully taken care of.
But there are people who misuse the Act.
They don’t want to pay the doctor’s fee or the hospital fee.
They create a ruckus and file a case under the Consumer Protection Act.
This turns into a harrowing experience for doctors and hospitals.
When things go well, a patient is happy, but when things go wrong, the patient blames the doctor and the hospital. This is dangerous.
Doctors order a bunch of medical tests to protect themselves against these complaints. And that increases the cost of procedures.
Everything has to be on record, so that if there is a dispute, they can prove that they were correct in doing whatever they did
Complexities
In some cases, there is gross negligence on the medical professionals’ part
In such cases, following the legal process is okay.
But when doctors who have done a good job and yet a shadow of doubt is cast on them
Patients go to court and file a case, then they go to the district forum, then to the State Commission on appeal, and then to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
It takes 10 harrowing years to prove that you are innocent.
It’s an experience that really takes the spirit out of doctors.
The doctor is rendering a service. He is highly qualified, just like an advocate. He is ready to help the patient.
But these are the problems — delays and frivolous litigation.
And there are people who just don’t want to pay doctors, so they come up with some case to cause trouble. It takes a toll on doctors.
If doctors’ associations themselves have an authority who can view these cases with expert medical knowledge and act, that would be sensible, instead of a person approaching the court and going the long way.
The courts cannot decide by themselves anyway; they have to get an expert opinion from a group of doctors.
Need for change
Action against malpractice is one thing, but to compensate an aggrieved consumer is another.
As we have an ombudsman for the insurance, banking, and electricity sectors, maybe we should have an independent authority to deal with these issues as a first step.
The consumer should always have the option to file a case before the consumer courts.
But as a first redress, we could have a body where the matter could be taken to first.
Similarly, we have the option of mediation under the Consumer Protection Act.
As of now, medical negligence is not covered under it.
What is needed is a very strong regulatory authority which can monitor medical professionals’ activity, but they should also have powers to control what is happening.
There is medical indemnity insurance that a lot of doctors subscribe to in order to be safe if they get into any problem.
But it is a difficult process if they have to go to court regardless.
COMMENTS