Healthcare services may be removed from the list of services in the Consumer Protection Bill 2018 that will be presented in Parliament.
In the case of Kusum Sharma versus Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre (2010), the Supreme Court has laid down principles to be followed while deciding whether the medical professional is guilty of medical negligence and these clauses clearly state that medical professionals are to use their skill, competence and provide care in the interest of the patients and if there is a deviation from the same the patient has the right to complain.
Advocate Momim Roshan says that consumer courts have centres where poor people are allowed to complain free of cost and these centres have been of great help to this set of people.
“But with this amendment these centres will not be able to operate. The complainant will have to approach the courts directly through advocates and that can be a costly affair. It is not going to be affordable for all. This is going to be the impact at the ground level as people will think that they can no longer come to the consumer court for these cases,” he said.
These centres have been successful only in the city where complainants have approached them with their problems. On an average, there are five or six cases every month and both parties have to talk to each other and settle the issue. It is necessary to specify terms so that people are aware that they can approach the court.
A senior government officer at the information centre explained, “We have found that doctors are very scared and they always send a lawyer to talk on their behalf. They are not willing to come forward and face the patient or his family stating that they are very busy.”
Doctors, on the other hand, say that consumer court complaints have become a tool for extracting money on humanitarian grounds and it has become a major hassle for them to practise freely.
According to BJP MP Subramanian Swamy, the Union Cabinet has approved the change in the Bill. “Namo Cabinet has decided to drop medical services from the Consumer Protection Act. An amendment will shortly be moved in Parliament (sic),” he said in a Twitter post.
“Addressing the Jaipur IMA conference last week I and demanded this from Govt. My thanks to Namo & Paswan for the decision,” Dr Swamy said. The Bill had been passed in the previous Lok Sabha.
If it comes through, the measure will leave patients with only the court in case of medical negligence.
The right of the consumer in terms of healthcare is restricted and that will leave most of them high and dry. Lawyers state the corporate hospitals and the negligent doctors will no longer fear the law as the scope to book them is reduced.
However, lawyers say that the medical profession is still considered a ‘service’ and so consumers can lodge complaints against deficiency of this service in the consumer court.
Advocate Gouri Shanker, who practises in the Consumer Court in Hyderabad, explained, “The government has carried out a technical amendment to the Act by removing the term ‘healthcare service’ but in the complete definition of services the medical profession is still rendering a service only. Under that clause an aggrieved patient can approach the consumer court and a case can be filed against the doctor or the hospital.”
This will have to be widely publicised or else people will think they cannot approach the consumer court for redress.
Advocate Srinivas Rao explained, “Whether the term exists or not, a consumer who has been offered a service has the right to approach the court if he is not happy with the service. The Consumer court cannot state that it will not take the complaint of the consumer. Whichever consumer has taken any service has the right to approach the court if not happy.”
A senior government advocate who did not want to be named, said, “In a case where there is sufficient evidence that there was not enough care, skill and the appropriate treatment, consumers have the right to move the court. They cannot be denied this right because of non-specification in the law. The right of the consumer who has been given a service justifies his claim if he does not find it appropriate or it caused damage to him.”
The removal of the terms allows for confusion, inability to decide, and also creates doubt in the mind of the consumer and will hold back many of them from approaching the court for justice.
A doctor on condition of anonymity explained, “If a critically ill patient dies the doctor is pulled up for negligence, which is not right. The patient’s family does not want to pay the bill. They either vandalise or go to the consumer court and want an out-of-court settlement. In 98 per cent of the cases it is purely extraction of money, nothing else.”
An official at the grievances cell explained, “In a majority of the cases the relatives are upset as the humanitarian touch in the care of the patient was missing.”
