{"id":242590,"date":"2025-02-19T21:46:36","date_gmt":"2025-02-19T21:46:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2025\/02\/19\/sc-upholds-doctors-liability-under-consumer-protection-act-rejects-review-plea\/"},"modified":"2025-02-19T21:46:36","modified_gmt":"2025-02-19T21:46:36","slug":"sc-upholds-doctors-liability-under-consumer-protection-act-rejects-review-plea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2025\/02\/19\/sc-upholds-doctors-liability-under-consumer-protection-act-rejects-review-plea\/","title":{"rendered":"SC upholds doctors\u2019 liability under Consumer Protection Act, rejects review plea"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"text-align:center\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/img.etimg.com\/photo\/msid-118393276,imgsize-97552.cms?ssl=1\" class=\"attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image\" alt=\"SC upholds doctors\u2019 liability under Consumer Protection Act, rejects review plea\" title=\"SC upholds doctors\u2019 liability under Consumer Protection Act, rejects review plea\" \/><\/div>\n<div data-brcount=\"11\">Upholding the doctors&#8217; liability under the <a ref=\"dofollow\" data-ga-onclick=\"Inarticle articleshow link click#News#href\" href=\"https:\/\/economictimes.indiatimes.com\/topic\/consumer-protection-act-1986\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Consumer Protection Act 1986<\/a>, the <a ref=\"dofollow\" data-ga-onclick=\"Inarticle articleshow link click#News#href\" href=\"https:\/\/economictimes.indiatimes.com\/topic\/supreme-court\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Supreme Court<\/a> has rejected a petition seeking review of its May last year&#8217;s decision that refused to reconsider its 1995 judgment that medical practitioners can be held liable under the Act for deficiency in their services.<\/p>\n<p><style><![CDATA[\n    \t    #sr_widget.onDemand p, #stock_pro.onDemand p{font-size: 14px;line-height: 1.28;}\n    \t    .onDemand .live_stock{left:17px;padding:1px 3px 1px 5px;font-size:12px;font-weight:600;line-height:18px;top:9px}\n    \t    #sr_widget.onDemand .sr_desc{margin:0 auto 0;}\n    \t    #sr_widget.onDemand .sr_desc{color: #024d99;margin-top:10px;}\n    \t    #sr_widget.onDemand .crypto .live_stock .lb-icon{8px 6px 5px 3px !important}\n    \t    #sr_widget.crypto.onDemand a.text{border-bottom:1px solid #ccc;padding-bottom:5px;display:block;width:100%}\n    \t    #sr_widget.onDemand .sr_desc .text p, #stock_pro.onDemand .sr_desc .text p{font-size:12px;font-weight:400;}\n    \t]]><\/style>\n<\/p>\n<p><!--\/article_liveblog.cms?msid=105115637&pos=toppotime:1-->The 1995 judgment, in the case of <a ref=\"dofollow\" data-ga-onclick=\"Inarticle articleshow link click#News#href\" href=\"https:\/\/economictimes.indiatimes.com\/topic\/indian-medical-association-vs-v-p-shantha\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha<\/a> &amp; Ors, significantly impacted the medical profession by making doctors accountable for their services under the Consumer Protection Act and patients could file consumer complaints against doctors for <a ref=\"dofollow\" data-ga-onclick=\"Inarticle articleshow link click#News#href\" href=\"https:\/\/economictimes.indiatimes.com\/topic\/medical-negligence\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">medical negligence<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Having perused the <a ref=\"dofollow\" data-ga-onclick=\"Inarticle articleshow link click#News#href\" href=\"https:\/\/economictimes.indiatimes.com\/topic\/review-petition\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">review petition<\/a> and the connected papers with meticulous care, we do not find any justifiable reason to entertain the review petition. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed,&#8221; said the bench of Justices B. R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K. V. Viswanathan said while rejecting the <a ref=\"dofollow\" data-ga-onclick=\"Inarticle articleshow link click#News#href\" href=\"https:\/\/economictimes.indiatimes.com\/topic\/medico-legal-society-of-india\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Medico-Legal Society of India<\/a>&#8216;s review plea.<\/p>\n<p>A SC two-judge bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and <a ref=\"dofollow\" data-ga-onclick=\"Inarticle articleshow link click#News#href\" href=\"https:\/\/economictimes.indiatimes.com\/topic\/pankaj-mithal\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Pankaj Mithal<\/a> in May had ruled that advocates cannot be held liable for deficiency in their services under the 1986 Act. And in the same ruling, it had said that its 1996 decision that held that medical professionals would be also accountable under the same Act, and that the definition of &#8216;services&#8217; under the Act would cover healthcare and the medical sector, would also need to be revisited.<\/p>\n<p>However, a three-judge bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan later in November took a contrary view that its 1995 decision does not need reconsideration. &#8220;The question as to whether the other professionals excluding legal profession could be covered by the Consumer Protection Act can be considered in appropriate cases, having a factual foundation,&#8221; the three-judge bench had said. The Medico-Legal Society of India had sought review of this decision.<\/p>\n<p><!--\/include_growfast.cms?pagename=article&skipcss=1potime:1--><br \/>The top court in 1995 had ruled that the word &#8216;services&#8217; under the 1986 Act would include the service rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment, both medicinal and surgical. However, in cases where the doctor renders service free of charge to every patient or under a contract of personal service would not comprise &#8216;services&#8217; under the Act.<\/p>\n<style><![CDATA[\n    \t    #sr_widget.onDemand p, #stock_pro.onDemand p{font-size: 14px;line-height: 1.28;}\n    \t    .onDemand .live_stock{left:17px;padding:1px 3px 1px 5px;font-size:12px;font-weight:600;line-height:18px;top:9px}\n    \t    #sr_widget.onDemand .sr_desc{margin:0 auto 0;}\n    \t    #sr_widget.onDemand .sr_desc{color: #024d99;margin-top:10px;}\n    \t    #sr_widget.onDemand .crypto .live_stock .lb-icon{8px 6px 5px 3px !important}\n    \t    #sr_widget.crypto.onDemand a.text{border-bottom:1px solid #ccc;padding-bottom:5px;display:block;width:100%}\n    \t    #sr_widget.onDemand .sr_desc .text p, #stock_pro.onDemand .sr_desc .text p{font-size:12px;font-weight:400;}\n    \t]]><\/style>\n<p><!--\/article_liveblog.cms?msid=105115637&pos=botpotime:2--><\/div>\n<p><br \/>\n<br \/><a href=\"https:\/\/economictimes.indiatimes.com\/news\/india\/sc-upholds-doctors-liability-under-consumer-protection-act-rejects-review-plea\/articleshow\/118393276.cms\">Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Upholding the doctors&#8217; liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Supreme Court has rejected a petition seeking review of its May last year&#8217;s decision that refused to reconsider its 1995 judgment that medical practitioners can be held liable under the Act for deficiency in their services. The 1995 judgment, in the case of Indian [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":242591,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/img.etimg.com\/photo\/msid-118393276,imgsize-97552.cms","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[602],"tags":[3010,7602,188657,9995,188658,188661,188659,9827,78459,188660,188662,5851,7829,1733,227,16726,1617,188656,22483],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242590"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=242590"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242590\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":242592,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242590\/revisions\/242592"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/242591"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}