An ex-colleague described her experience at a hospital in Bhubaneswar. She underwent a piles operation during which the doctor allegedly injured part of her rectum. Within two days, before full recovery, she was persuaded to take discharge (which as per her was a deliberate attempt on part of the doctor/hospital after realising their mistake). An infection developed at home and she was readmitted. Without medical records and an independent assessment, no one should pronounce a verdict on negligence. But when treatment goes wrong, where can a patient seek redress?
The Supreme Court is considering a petition by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India) and Dr Alexander Thomas seeking to exclude doctors with MBBS or higher qualifications from “service” under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. On 10 February 2026, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant issued notice to the Union and other respondents. This is not a final ruling. The petition argues that consumer litigation turns a relationship based on trust, empathy and care into an adversarial transaction, encourages defensive medicine and exposes doctors to prolonged proceedings. One petitioner recounts being named in a consumer case that was ultimately dismissed. These concerns deserve consideration. So does patient vulnerability.
There is, however, a moral argument to answer. Medicine is a noble profession devoted to saving lives. But nobility cannot become immunity. A doctor is not a deity, and a patient need not exchange legal rights for gratitude. Where treatment is paid for, the practitioner and hospital undertake obligations of skill, care, diligence, honest communication and follow-up. The patient pays for a service, not a sermon about sacrifice. If treatment is entirely free, the statutory position may differ. But where money changes hands, invoking compassion or the sanctity of medicine cannot make scrutiny disrespectful. Trust cannot be demanded while accountability is treated as an inconvenience. Empathy must extend to the person on the operating table, too.
The legal position is clear. In Indian Medical Association vs VP Shantha (1995), the Supreme Court held that medical services provided for consideration generally fall within consumer law, subject to exclusions including services rendered wholly free to everyone and contracts of personal service. Section 2(42) of the 2019 Act defines “service”; Section 2(11) defines “deficiency”; Section 39 empowers consumer commissions to grant remedies, including compensation. The 2024 decision in Bar of Indian Lawyers vs D K Gandhi excluded advocates, not automatically doctors. In November 2024, a three-judge bench left the question concerning other professions open for an appropriate case. V P Shantha remains binding unless the Supreme Court changes it.
The CPA is not the only route. Patients may bring civil claims; professional misconduct may be raised before medical councils. Criminal proceedings are possible, but require a higher threshold. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005), the Supreme Court held that criminal liability requires gross negligence or recklessness, not merely an error of judgment or adverse outcome. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 125 addresses rash or negligent acts endangering life or personal safety, including hurt or grievous hurt; Section 106(1) concerns death caused by negligence, with a specific provision for registered medical practitioners performing medical procedures. Criminal law may punish serious wrongdoing; it is not a substitute for compensation. The CPA provides that additional route.
Consider the woman in the opening paragraph. The hospital holds the operative notes and discharge records. The patient may lack resources for an independent opinion or lengthy civil suit. If consumer jurisdiction disappears, the right to sue may survive in theory but become harder to exercise. Criminal law is no simple alternative: it does not compensate every patient, and not every negligent act meets its threshold.
We have become accustomed to this imbalance. Families borrow, sell jewellery and exhaust savings to pay hospital bills, complain privately and move on. We rarely demand transparent records, independent grievance mechanisms, stronger public hospitals or accountability for public money routed into private healthcare. In a previous article, “You Have Been Referred”, we questioned a State that sends citizens yo private providers when public facilities fail them. In another article, “The Porsche, the ₹70 Meal and the Business of Human Suffering”, the red Porsche outside a Bhubaneswar hospital became an image of wealth beside vulnerability. The issue is not that hospitals should prosper or not?; it is whether commercial power is matched by public accountability.
Doctors need protection from malicious complaints; consumer forums need expertise to assess medical evidence and decide cases without years of delay. But reforming a remedy is not abolishing it. Article 21 protects life; Article 47 directs the State to improve public health. Neither is fulfilled by asking citizens to rely on gratitude when they need answers.
A patient may be grateful to a doctor who saves a life. Gratitude is freely given; it cannot be demanded as the price of silence. The Porsche returns—not as an indictment of success, but as a reminder of the distance between healthcare’s business and those who enter a hospital with their bodies, savings and hopes in another person’s hands. The question which remains to be answered is, should a citizen be expected to pay like a customer and surrender the right to seek justice like a consumer?
(Views expressed by the columnist are personal and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of the news portal)
