Kochi: The Kerala High Court has stated that the medical profession, which includes the services of doctors, falls within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.
Justice N Nagaresh stated this, while dismissing a petition filed by Dr Vijil and a group of doctors from Kannur. The court also did not intervene in the orders of the district and state commissions that said there is no bar on Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums considering the complaints of medical negligence.
The issue pertains to Kannur native T P Ambujakshi, who lost sight in her left eye following cataract treatment, approaching the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, seeking a compensation of Rs 32.52 lakh.
Although the doctors argued that such complaints do not come under the jurisdictions of the consumer commissions, the district and state commissions had rejected this contention. Dr Vijil and the other doctors then filed the petition in the HC against this.
The petitioners contended that medical services will be affected if the doctors have to defend cases at various places. But the court pointed out that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, states that any service, which is not free or is not part of the personal service contract, falls within the ambit of the Section 2(42). Medical services that are not free of charge will also come under the purview of the Act.
The court also pointed out the Supreme Court had interpreted the Act, 1986, to state that the doctor's consultation, diagnosis, and treatment fall within the ambit of the Act.
Although services such as banking, finance, insurance, and transport are specified in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the petitioners contended that it does not include medical service. But the court stated that only some of the public utility services were specified and the services other than these are also included. The Act itself states that this is not exhaustive.
The petitioners had further contended that though the draft law included medical service, it was deliberately excluded when the law was enacted. But the court did not accept their contention.
The court ruled there is no need to refer the draft to interpret the Act as the Act is devoid of any ambiguity.
