Supreme Court Refuses to Reconsider 1995 Judgment Holding, Medical Professionals Come Under the Ambit of the Consumer Protection Act

Today (November 07, 2024), the Supreme Court (SC) bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice KV Viswanathan refused to reconsider its 1995 judgment in the Indian Medical Association vs. VP Shantha which held that medical professionals come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. The bench said that the reference made against the decision was unnecessary. Earlier on May 14, the SC bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that the legal professionals are not covered by the Consumer Protection Act and asked for reconsideration of the 1995 judgment. After hearing the matter, the SC ordered, “The question before the division bench was whether legal professionals could be covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. While considering said question, the Court came to a specific conclusion that the legal profession is sui generis, that is unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other profession. The Court also held that service hired or availed of an advocate is a service under contract of personal service…”

The bench added, “While considering the said question, the Court was of the view that in the case of Shantha, where the court was considering question of whether medical practitioners would be covered under the Consumer Protection Act, requires to be revisited. The division bench observed that the question as to whether a profession could be treated as business or trade and therefore, covered within the ambit of the definition under Section 2(1)(o) [service] required a revisit. We find that the issue before the Court was with regards to the legal profession and Court in unequivocal terms came to a conclusion that the legal profession is not covered by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Since the Court came to the aforesaid finding, irrespective of the finding of this Court in Shantha, the reference was not necessary. 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... In view of the matter, we dispose of the reference.”