The Supreme Court Friday mentioned that medical doctors and healthcare companies should not excluded from the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 and termed the PIL regarding it as a “motivated PIL”.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli affirmed the Bombay High Court verdict which held that medical doctors and healthcare service suppliers are lined underneath the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.
Appearing for the petitioner an NGO “Medicos Legal Action Group”, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra mentioned that within the 1986 laws there was no point out of healthcare within the definition of companies and regardless of there being a proposal to incorporate it underneath the brand new Act, it was truly not included.
The bench mentioned that the statute says “services of any description” and added the definition of service is extensive sufficient and had the Parliament wished to exclude it, then it will have mentioned expressly.
Justice Chandrachud mentioned, “Actually your client committed a self-goal. Some consumer negligence case against the doctor and they have prompted it to file a PIL. This is a motivated PIL”.
The bench added that the rationale why healthcare was deleted was that the definition itself of “services” is extensive sufficient and the Minister’s speech in the home can’t limit what’s expressly said within the statute.
Justice Chandrachud referred to a latest verdict handed by him and mentioned that comparable was the case of Telecom companies which was not there in 1986 laws however the court docket mentioned that it implied that it was lined underneath the “services of any description”.
The bench mentioned, “The speech of the minister which you are referring to is very guarded. We will affirm the judgement of the High Court and you shall pay the fine within four weeks”.
The Bombay High Court verdict of final yr whereas dismissing the PIL had mentioned that there was not a lot distinction between the definition of “services” underneath the 1986 and 2019 legislations as healthcare companies weren’t expressly talked about within the 1986 Act additionally.
The High Court had imposed a price of Rs 50 thousand on the NGO.
Source: www.financialexpress.com”