This article will discuss the pros and cons of inclusion or exclusion of healthcare in the Consumer Protection Act which is a trending and contentious topic of discussion.

Following a meeting with the Union health minister, the Indian Medical Association (IMA), the country's biggest network of physicians, has demanded a revision to the Consumer Protection Act, 2020, to specifically exclude healthcare services from the Act's scope. So far, the government hasn't said anything, but if it does, it could have a big impact on the health care system, which includes doctors and patients.

What is the history behind the Consumer Protection Act's inclusion of healthcare?

The medical profession was brought within the 1986 CPA Act in 1995, and people paying for health services were recognised as consumers after a major Supreme Court decision.

What objections has the IMA had about the Act's inclusion of healthcare?

1. According to the IMA, the shift fundamentally altered the nature of the doctor-patient connection and resulted in a major trust gap between the two. On the ground, it has meant that in instances of medical negligence or misconduct, patients and aggrieved families may file complaints against physicians with consumer protection authorities seeking monetary compensation and, in certain situations, regulatory action against medical practitioners. This has led to a slew of lawsuits against physicians, making it difficult for them to practise medicine, according to the IMA.
2. Healthcare was retained in the first version of the drafting CPA (Amendment) bill released in 2018, however, after concerns from physicians, it was amended despite having been approved by the Lok Sabha already. The bill's 2019 revision eliminated healthcare from the list of covered services.

What is the issue of disagreement at the moment?

This, in practice, means that despite healthcare not being mentioned in the “inclusion list,” it is also not excluded from the list of services covered by the Act and litigation against healthcare providers in consumer courts has continued.

IMA asserts that until the Act expressly excludes healthcare from the list of services covered by the Act, the physicians' group would continue to fight for it. The Supreme Court has clarified its view in the past – in the case of  Indian Medical Association vs V.P Shantha and Others.

What does this signify for the rights of patients?

According to a former expert with the National Health Systems Resource Center, because the Clinical Establishment Act, 2010 legislation regulating private healthcare providers in the country has not been implemented properly, patients will be left with no recourse if avenues for judicial review in cases of medical malpractice and ethical violations are removed.

As per the expert:

"While I realise that physicians, at some level, feel vulnerable and that there are a few malafide instances against them, there has to be some kind of grievance procedure through which patients and their relatives may fight for the preservation of their rights. Otherwise, the court would hear only instances of criminal carelessness."

The IMA would accept a new procedure for resolving patient grievances if a limit is placed on the compensation given to patients.

Disclaimer- The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of M3 India.

The author is a practising super specialist from New Delhi.