Review Petition Filed In Supreme Court Against Refusal To Reconsider Judgment On Doctors' Liability Under Consumer Protection Act

A review petition has been filed against the November 7 order of the Supreme Court refusing to reconsider the 1995 judgment in Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha, which held that medical professionals come within the ambit of the Consumer Protect Act, 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019). 

In the review petition, it has been stated that removing doctors from the Consumer Protection Act will boost doctors' sinking morale, repair doctor-patient relationships, and prevent a healthcare delivery crisis in the near future. 

It is said: "A doctor needs a certain element of trust from the patient for him to take risks and try to save life. Looking at every patient as a potential litigant has strained the doctor patient relationship. If doctors are dissuaded from their duty due to anxiety about litigation, and for fear of hefty compensations, society will be the ultimate sufferer."

The November 7 order was passed, rejecting a reference made by a division bench of the Supreme Court to reconsider the 1995 judgment. On May 14, a two-judge bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal held that legal professionals are not covered by the Consumer Protection Act and observed that the 1995 judgment in VP Shantha required reconsideration.

This then came up before a three-judge bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Vishwanathan, which held that the reference was not necessary. It also questioned the necessity of making a reference to another profession since the Court already held that the legal profession is sui generis.

Grounds for review 

The Medico-Legal Society of India has filed a review petition against the decision of a three-judge bench. The review petition states that the issue raised in the present matter is of importance for both the healthcare professionals as well as the citizens of the country.

Essentially, it has been argued that there was no legal reason in the November 7 order as to why the V.P. Shantha judgment should not be revisited in spite of reference made by the two-judge bench.

The review petitioners have stated that the medical profession involves complex decision-making under uncertainty, often with life-or-death circumstances. 

"Doctors cannot guarantee outcomes ( the same treatment can have totally different effects on different patients) , unlike other service providers. The human response to any treatment can range from cure, no effect. complications, significant harm and death...Recommendations given in textbooks are based on statistics which never promise 100% cure but a significant chance of a cure.

Should all patients who do not get a cure approach the court for negligence? The consumer friendly Act is encouraging this stance and causing adverse conditions for medical practice which is causing doctors to leave the profession, leave India The stress of litigation in practice has taken many lives through suicide. Most doctors enter medical practice to do good for society," as averred in the review petition.

It has also been stated that the November 7 order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the Medico-Legal Society of India, which was the intervenor in the case, was denied an opportunity to be heard. It should also be noted that the Medico-Legal Society of India had filed an intervention when the matter was heard before a two-judge bench. 

The review petition states: "Hearing and accepting the arguments about the medical profession without involving any association of doctors to clarify the facts...It must therefore be exercised in a limited manner. Petitioner humbly submits that order passed without hearing properly filed intervention application has resulted into gross miscarriage of justice not only to Medico Legal Society of India but entire medical fraternity in particular and citizens of the country in general."