The Jurisprudence of Medical Negligence under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Trends, Challenges, and Reform

Abstract

For the past three decades or so, there have been two themes that have underpinned Indian consumer law: the first is that anyone who paid for care was a consumer, and the second is that a failure to provide someone with the level of care expected was a service deficit. The Supreme Court had upheld this stance in “Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha” (1995) and it had held tough when “healthcare” was quietly omitted from the definition of “service” in the Bill during Parliament. This study attempts to explore the "Operation of the Medical-negligence liability under (new) “Consumer Protection Act, 2019”. It outlines the fundamental components of an area the imitation for the standard of care, the role of notice, the status of non-conforming conduct, which is held accountable for the conduct of others and how courts value a loss as well as the elements of the 2019 statute that changed, including the IOLTA chapter and the mediation process. Next, it shifts to the most painful present hazard, the Court's judgment in the case "Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi" in 2024, after which the young woman came out of the consumer domain and the Court seemed to entertain suspicions about V.P. Shantha's continuation. A review petition filed in 2025 was rejected, and the case went to a three-judge Bench in November 2024, without that Bench disturbing the status quo of V.P. Shantha, this paper argues, a whole category of liability yet remains under the shadow of this unnecessary dispute. The final piece suggests changes in the areas of doctrine, use of experts, compensation, and avoiding defensive medicine.