Prashant, B.A. LL.B., Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
INTRODUCTION
Many grievances have been made with consumer courts demanding reimbursement under the “Consumer Protection Act of 1986” as a consequence of the rise in the numeral of cases of medicinal malpractice. As specified in “Section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act”, service has been defined as “service of any description which is made available to potential (users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, the supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.”. There were a number of complications regarding the interpretation of the word “consumer” and many precedents were set by High Court and Consumer Court but none of them were perfect and the interpretation of “consumer” was ambiguous. Ultimately, this case was filed in the Apex court of India to provide relief to the patients by considering them also as a consumer.
In 1995, the Apex Court announced a major ruling in this case of “Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha1”, which positioned medical practise under the definition of ‘service' as specified in “Section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986” and elucidated former interpretations. In this case, the court identified patients’ being “consumers” and provided them with the right to seek redress in consumer courts. This decision of the court refined the interpretation of patient and medical professional relation as a relation of consumer. This refinement provided the patients the right to move to the consumer court in case of mistake of the medical professionals.
