J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioners, who are Doctors practicing Modern Medicine in Kannur, have filed this writ petition seeking to quash Exts.P4 and P6 orders of the District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, as sans jurisdiction and hence illegal. The petitioners also pray to declare that the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 do not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of complaints in respect of medical negligence and deficiency in medical service, as medical profession and practice do not come within the purview of the term ‘service’ defined under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2. The petitioners state that C.C. No.202/2020 was filed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur alleging that the complainant therein consulted the 1st petitioner, who diagnosed cataract in her left eye. There was no relief. The complainant was sent to other opposite parties. After the treatment by the opposite parties, the complainant lost the sight of her left eye. The complainant alleged that loss of eye sight was due to medical negligence and sought for a compensation of ₹32,52,000/-.

3. On receipt of notice, the petitioners filed Ext.P2 I.A. No.92/2020 challenging the maintainability of C.C. No.202/2020 as medical service will not fall within the ambit of Section 2(42) of the Act, 2019. The District Commission dismissed the I.A. as per Ext.P4 order dated 10.03.2021. Ext.P5 Revision Petition filed by the petitioners challenging Ext.P4 was dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as per Ext.P6 judgment dated

25.08.2021.

4. The Senior Counsel assisted by the counsel for the petitioners argued that the medical service/practice is not included in the illustrations in the inclusive definition of the term 'service' under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and hence the intention of the Parliament is clear that the Parliament did not want to include medical services/profession within the purview of the term 'service'. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the Draft Bill of the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019 had included health sector among the illustrations of facilities that are treated as 'service' in Section 2(42) of the new Act. However, the health sector was removed from among the illustrations under Section 2(42). The obvious reason is that the lawmakers intended to exclude medical service/profession from the purview of the new Act.

5. The learned Senior Counsel argued that in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and others [(1995) 6 SCC 651], the Hon'ble Apex Court declared the law and held that the medical practice/profession would also come within the purview of the definition of the term 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, 1986. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of Act, 1986, the Parliament should have specifically excluded the term 'medical profession/practice' from the purview of Section

2(42) of the new Act, 2019.

6. The fact that 'medical profession/practice' has been omitted by the Parliament from the list of facilities like banking, financing, insurance, etc. from the illustrations of the term 'service' under Section 2(42) of the Act, 2019 despite the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly discloses the intention of the Parliament not to include 'medical profession/practice' within the definition of 'service'

as defined under the new Act, 2019.

7. There are other factors that influenced the Union and the Parliament to exclude 'medical profession/practice' from the purview of the Act, 2019, contended the Senior Counsel. Section 34 of the new Act has fixed the territorial jurisdiction of the consumer fora vis-a-vis the cause of action to be applied to the medical profession. Compelling the Doctors to leave their place of practice to defend consumer complaints at distant places where complainants ordinarily reside, would adversely affect medical