Aishwarya Lakshmi V.M.
The erstwhile Indian legislation to protect consumer rights, “The Consumer Protection Act, 1986” was in dire need of Amendments to meet global standards and to cope with changing trends in providing services post Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization. Hence, the Consumer Protection Bill, 2018 was introduced and passed in the Lok Sabha. In the 2018 Bill, the term ‘healthcare’ was expressly included in the definition of service [S.2(42)]. However, due to severe opposition from the healthcare industry citing abuse and harassment of doctors in the erstwhile regime, the term ‘healthcare’ was dropped from the definition of service in the Consumer Protection Bill, 2019. The 2019 Bill was passed in both the houses of the Parliament, received presidential assent and came into effect as the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 repealing the 1986 Act.
The 2019 Act in S.2(42) defines ‘service’ without the express inclusion of the term ‘healthcare’. Ever since, there has been much hue and cry about consumers’ inability to sue negligent doctors under the 2019 Act.
What is to be had in mind is that the Act only excludes ‘healthcare’ from the inclusive definition of ‘service’. What is expressly excluded is free-service and service under personal contract. In the light of the Apex Court’s healthcare jurisprudence in Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha, ‘healthcare’ still falls within the ambit of ‘service’.
Hence, consumers may still follow the recourse laid down under the 2019 Act. However, this is completely subject to the judicial interpretation of S.2(42). A categorical inclusion or exclusion has to be laid down by the Courts of Law, for which time is the only key driver.
If Courts exclude healthcare from S.2(42), the only recourse available to aggrieved patients is the halls of justice itself.
Comments