Page |1

ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW

IMPACT OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT ON MEDICAL

NEGLIGENCE- REVIEW ARTICLE

SUBMITTED TO
AST PROF, ABHISHEK SARMA

SUBMITTED BY
NANDHINIBALA.P
2022BBLH07ASL033
[ 2022-2027]
 Page |2

ABSTRACT
This idea is not brand-new in India. It is unmistakably demonstrated in the old text
of Charaka's oath. However, the legal implications of medicine and medical malpractice have
grown significantly in recent years. In recent decades, there has been a rise in public
awareness of constitutionally given fundamental rights, which has heightened scrutiny of the
medical community from both the public and the judiciary. Since the Consumer Protection
Act was approved by the Indian parliament in 1986, it has been a powerful instrument for
consumers to combat the threat of any service that is offered to them. The Act marks a
turning point in socioeconomic legislation by addressing the long-felt need to safeguard the
commons from becoming fictitious. For customers, medical services are just as vital as any
other service, and just like with other services, consumers have been having difficulties. The
doctor-patient relationship has dramatically worsened, and lawsuits against doctors are
becoming more commonplace every day.1

Keywords

Consumer protection act, medical negligence, landmarks of the supreme court, and
its components.

1
Sonali Chalakh & Sunil Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh: Role of Consumer Protection Act in Medical Practice
International Ayurvedic Medical Journal. 2016 4; (12); 3674-3681.
 Page |3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………..04
2. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986 ………………………...05
3. MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE………………………………………..06
3.1. TYPE OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE…………………….06
3.2. LAW GOVERNING MEDICAL PRACTICE…………….07
3.3. STRUCTURE OF CONSUMER FORUM AND
THEIR JURISDICTION……………………...07
4. REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………………..08
5. PREFACE OF CONSUMER RIGHT…………………………… 08
6. MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE BY AUTHORS……………………. 09
7. BOLAM TEST FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE………………10
8. LANDMARK SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT……………..11
9. COMPONENTS OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE……………….12
9.1. BREACH OF DUTY………………………………………..13
9.2. OMISSION………………………………………………….14
9.3. ERROR OF JUDGEMENT………………………………..14
9.4. CONSENT…………………………………………………...15
9.5. DISCUSSIONS………………………………………………17
10. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………18
11.REFERENCE………………………………………………………19

1. INTRODUCTION
 Page |4

Medical malpractice and negligence have significantly escalated during the previous
few decades. The decline in patient care quality is thought to be the result of a desire for
financial gain in a variety of ways. On the other hand, with the assistance of advocates,
patients have also learned more about their rights, and there has been a rapid rise in the
number of complaints against doctors from diverse parties in consumer forums. Physicians
may make mistakes owing to negligence or for other reasons.

As a result, the patient is the one who suffers the most. Before now, patients who
had been harmed by medical malpractice had access to an effective adjudicative body to
address their complaints. The Consumer Protection Act was passed on December 24th, 1986
to improve consumer interest protection, to establish consumer councils and other agencies
for the resolution of consumer disputes, and for things related thereto.2 3

They treat doctors as though they were God. They offer relief to people with a
range of illnesses and afflictions and humanitarian services. Doctors and other medical
professionals are revered because of the immense service they provide to humanity, and the
medical field has long been seen as a noble one.4

2. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

2
Reddy KSN; Medical laws and ethics; The essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology; K. Suguna Devi, Hyderabad; 28th
edition 2009; 49-50
3
Consumer Protection Act and Medical profession [2009?] [Cited 2023 Feb12]. Available from URL
http://www.medindia.net/doctors/cpa/CPA. asp
4
Dr. Aneesh V. Pillai. Determination of Damages in Medical Negligence Cases: An Overview. School of Legal Studies, Cochin
University of Science and Technology, Kerala.
 Page |5

India's Consumer Protection Act, 1986—hereinafter referred to as the Act—is the

legally binding codification of consumer protection legislation in India. The Act was created
in response to a persistent consumer demand to fill a gap in current Indian legislation and
give greater safeguards for them. To safeguard customers' rights and interests and resolve
their conflicts, the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 was passed. The scope of the Act now
extends to the medical profession.5

Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act defines “consumer” as a person who hires or avails of
any services for a consideration, while section 2(1)(o) defines "service" to mean service of
any description which is made available to potential users. There is no explicit reference to
service by medical practitioners to be included under the realm of service under section 2(1)
(o). It was initially thought that medical services are not under the ambit of the Act. This
controversy was put to rest by the apex court in Indian Medical Association v V. P. Shantha6

The following medical services are not covered by the Consumer Protection Act:

1. Under a contract of personal service, when a doctor provides his employer with
professional services while acting in the position of an employee. In other words, any
situation in which the patient receiving medical care and the doctor had a master-servant
relationship would be exempt from the Act's definition of service.

2. When no fee is collected from any patients—rich or poor—at a hospital, health

centre, or dispensary, whether it is government-run or not, the service is not covered by the
Act. Only medical businesses that offer free services were excluded.7

3. MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

5
Chaudhury RNP, Consumer Protection Law: Provisions & Procedure, Deep &Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

6
Indian Medical Association v. V. P. Shantha, AIR 1996 SC 550

7
Ramsay, Iain, Consumer Law and Policy, 3rd Edition, Hart Publishers.
 Page |6

Negligence is a sort of tort or civil wrong that can also be wrong under criminal and
consumer law. It is an inadvertent violation of a legal obligation that harms another person.
The three main components of negligence are:

(1) a legal obligation to take reasonable care,

(2) a breach of that obligation, and

(3) consequential damages, according to the Supreme Court's definition of the

term in the Poonam Verma case. Medical Negligence is the performance or omission of an
act by a medical practitioner or health care provider, that deviates from the established norms
of medical practice, leading to an injury to the patient.8

While granting compensation, the Indian Consumer Forums and courts also adhere to the
notion of returning the patient to his prior status.

According to the Supreme court of India, regardless of the claim, the Consumer Forum has
the power to determine the amount of compensation in Charan Singh v. Healing Touch
Hospital9.

3.1 Types of Negligence10

A. Civil professional negligence
1. Noncompliance with contractual duties
2. Investigation
3. Diagnosis/Laboratory test/Procedure (incorrect)
4. Therapy (Prolonged, Unnecessary, or Delayed.)
5. Acceptance. without permission, surgery
6. Issuing incorrect or misleading certifications or reports.

B. Criminal professional negligence

8
Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel and others; 1996 SCC(4) 332

9
(2000) 7 SCC 668.

10
AIR 1969 (SC) 128
 Page |7

It relates to professional negligence, for which the patient or a member of his

family accuses the doctor of excessive carelessness and requests punishment from
the criminal court. The matter is often tried by JMFC, typically under section 304 A
of the IPC, and the penalty is up to two years in jail.

3.2 The law governing medical practices

A person seeking compensation for medical misconduct in India may pursue

the following legal options:

1. Damages claims under the Civil Process Code;

2. Negligence claims under the Criminal Procedure Code;
3. Recourse under the Consumer Protection Act; and
4. Disciplinary action by the Medical Council of India.
5. The Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) and the relevant
state council.

3.3 Structure of consumer forum/Commissions and their jurisdictions:11

A. National Commission: Original jurisdiction over Rupees 1 Cores

B. State commission: Original jurisdiction over Rupees 20 lacks to 1 Core

C. District forum: Original jurisdiction up to Rupees 20 lacks.

4. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

11
Mathiharan K; Modi‟s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology; LexisNexis Butterworths Nagpur; Twenty-Third Edition;
Page no 161.
 Page |8

Every medical specialist is seen as being on par with God. Thus do all medical
professionals, who offer comfort to people with a range of illnesses and problems. Doctors
and other medical professionals are viewed with respect in society and have been regarded as
noble professions from ancient times because of their selfless contribution to mankind, the
community, and particularly rural people. The doctor-patient relationship has changed,
nevertheless, as a result of time, competition, patient vigilance, and illness awareness.
Throughout the past several decades, many situations involving patients who suffered as a
result of a doctor's mistake or negligent behaviour have come to light.

Most legal systems have evolved different laws and principles to cope with such
unintentional behaviour of doctors due to the rise in conflicts and legal issues between
patients and doctors. As a result, a new area of law known as medico-legal cases, or medical
negligence, has emerged. So, any carelessness on the side of the medical practitioner would
be handled as either a tort of negligence or a failure in service under the Consumer Protection
Act of 1986.

Damage assessment in cases of carelessness is often a simple procedure. Yet

determining the extent of the pain and associated mental anguish is a monumental challenge.
Pain and emotional anguish are frequently included in medical malpractice cases. Damages
are calculated based on the patient's loss sustained.

5. PREFACE OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 198612,13

To raise awareness of consumers' rights, "International Consumers Right Day" is

observed annually on March 15 and "National Consumers Right Day" is observed annually in
India on December 24. A 1995 Supreme Court decision brought the medical field under the
1986 Consumer Protection Act's jurisdiction.

12
. Supreme Court‟s Landmark Judgment: Docs can be Sued for Compensation; Hindustan Times, Nov.14, 1995
13
Planning Commission Skeptical About Govt. “Consumer Right Day” Initiative; Times of India; Dec. 29, 2000: 3.
 Page |9

6. MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE BY AUTHORS

The area of medical law known as medical negligence includes every medical
action that is seen as being hasty or reckless. Medical malpractice refers to when a medical
professional does not exercise the care, attention, and skills that a sensible, competent
individual would use in the same situation. Negligence refers to actions that lack the legal
obligation to safeguard others from known hazards. Tort law applies. A tort is a civil wrong
that one person commits against another.

Winfield has defined negligence as a tort which is the breach of a legal duty to take
care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff. An act involving the
above ingredients is a negligent act.14

History demonstrates that the view of medical malpractice has changed from a
criminal offence to a tort strategy. In earlier civilizations, a doctor's hands were cut off if the
patient died during an operation. Islamic law, Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita,
Manusmriti, Kautilya's Arthashastra, and Yadnyavalka smriti all address the issue of medical
negligence. It was believed that medical malpractice was more of a criminal than a tort. As
civilization advanced, the judiciary began to consider medical malpractice more like a tort so
that the sufferer may receive compensation.

Medical malpractice is more precisely defined as a lack of reasonable care and

expertise on the part of the medical practitioner about the patients during history taking,
clinical examination, investigation, diagnosis, and treatment that led to damage, death, or an
unsatisfactory outcome. Medical negligence is often defined as failing to behave in
conformity with current medical standards and failing to use reasonable care and effort. 15 The
factor that determines the nature of the conduct and renders it illegal is negligence, not the act
itself.16

14
Winfield and Jalou.ICZ, Tort,5th, p.4
15
Gupta, Kiran, “The standard of care and proof in the medical profession, A shift from Bolam to Bolitho”, XIV-XV
National Capital Law Journal 1(2011-2012).
16
Stephenson v. Southern Pac. Co.(1894) 102 Cal. 143, 147.
 P a g e | 10

The following are the elements of a negligence claim:17

(1) A responsibility to exercise ordinary care

(2) A violation of that obligation
(3) An approximate causal relationship between the negligent behaviour and the harm
that resulted
(4) The harm that resulted.
(5)

7. BOLAM TEST FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

A medical practitioner is expected to possess the necessary level of expertise and

understanding in his field. The Bolam18 test, which is the recognised standard in India, adds
an extra viewpoint for professionals like medical practitioners under the regulation governing
professional negligence.

If a doctor followed a course of action that was sanctioned by an organisation or

council of medical professionals with expertise in that field, they were not acting negligently.
In its ruling in the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, the Indian Supreme Court
endorsed this strategy.19 The Supreme Court established the two-part test outlined below to
distinguish between claims of common negligence and allegations of professional negligence:

Hence, in evaluating whether a lawsuit involves ordinary negligence or medical malpractice,

a court must consider two key factors:

1) If the claim relates to behaviour that took place within a professional

relationship;

2) Whether the claim presents issues of medical judgement that go beyond what
is generally understood and experienced. If the answer to both of these questions is yes, the
case is subject to the substantive and procedural rules that apply to lawsuits alleging medical
negligence.

17
Budd v. Nixen, (1971) 6 Cal.3d 195, 200
18
Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, [1957] 1 WLR.
19
Supra n 10.
 P a g e | 11

While judges are aware of and comprehend typical conditions, they are perfectly
qualified to determine what a reasonable man would do in situations of usual carelessness.
Yet in situations of medical malpractice, judicial expertise often does not extend to the
complexities of medical science. The court might not be able to assess the reasonableness of
medical action that he does not fully comprehend. Maybe the best example of a profession
where outcomes are not promised and are not expected to be guaranteed is medicine.20

8. LANDMARK SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT

The legal position of medical negligence in India has been described in several
leading judgments.

The Supreme Court in Laxman v. Trimbak 21

The obligations a doctor has to his patients are obvious. A person who presents
himself as prepared to offer medical advice and treatment implicitly represents that he has the
knowledge and expertise necessary for the job. Such a person owes various obligations to the
patient when they are consulted, including a duty of care while determining whether to take
on the case, a duty of care when determining what therapy to administer, and a duty of care
when choosing what treatment to deliver. A fair level of competence, knowledge, and care
must be applied by the practitioner to his or her duty.

In Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v.22 State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court said

Medical professionals' levels of ability vary from one doctor to the next. There may
be more than one course of treatment that is suitable for treating a patient because of the
nature of the profession. If a doctor discharged his duty to the best of his abilities and with
reasonable care and caution, courts would be hesitant to find him negligent. Regarding the
course of action to be followed by a doctor treating a patient, a medical opinion may differ,
but as long as a doctor acts in a way that is acceptable to the medical profession the degrees
of expertise among medical professionals differ from one doctor to the next. Because of the
nature of the profession, there could be more than one course of treatment that is appropriate
for treating a patient. Courts would be reluctant to declare a doctor negligent if he performed
his duties to the best of his abilities and with reasonable care and prudence. A medical
20
Jackson & Powell, Medical Negligence Litigation: Time for Reform, PS Ranjan, Medical Law, and Ethics.
21
Laxman v. Trimbak ,AIR 1969 SC 128
22
Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra. [AIR 1996 SC 2377].
 P a g e | 12

opinion may differ over the treatment strategy to be used by a doctor for a patient, however as
long as a doctor behaves in a manner that is acceptable to the medical profession.

In a judgement, the Apex Court clearly outlined the following guidelines for finding doctors
negligent:

A finding of negligence will always be made in the instance of a serious medical

error. misuse of drugs or incorrect gas during anaesthesia will usually result in the imposition
of culpability, and in some cases, the res ipsa loquitur concept can be used. In some
situations, even assigning blame to another person might be considered carelessness. When a
consultant assigns responsibility to a subordinate while knowing that the subordinate is
unable to carry out his tasks adequately, this is considered negligence.

9. COMPONENTS OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

Three categories of harm are protected by negligence:

 personal injury,
 property damage, and
 economic loss.

It is debatable whether carelessness is a tort or a legal ground for culpability. A tort

called negligence establishes legal responsibility for reckless actions or inactions that result in
harm. In terms of medical malpractice tort law, medical negligence typically serves as the
foundation for a case seeking damages for harm brought on by a doctor or other medical
practitioner to a patient. A doctor has a responsibility to diagnose and treat patients by the
level of care provided by other doctors in the community who have received comparable
training.

A claim of negligence against a doctor treating a patient cannot be supported by

the unsatisfactory results of medical therapy alone. If the patient's sickness cannot be treated
after more extensive therapy, he or she cannot file a medical malpractice claim against the
practitioner. A medical professional commits medical negligence when they don't apply the
same level of caution and care that other professionals in the same area of medicine do.

A claimant must prove the following to prove that a provider's carelessness constituted
malpractice:
 P a g e | 13

A. Duty of care was due by the healthcare provider to the plaintiff;

B. The healthcare provider violated the obligation;
C. The healthcare provider's violation resulted in harm; and
D. The patient incurred damages as a result of the defendant's carelessness.

9.1 Breach of duty

Medical professional, including doctors, has a legal obligation to look after their
patients. The doctor will be held accountable if they violate that responsibility and it causes
harm or property loss. The doctor must treat the patient with a fair amount of care and
expertise, but he cannot and should not guarantee that the condition will be cured. In other
words, a doctor is just needed to treat the patient with the appropriate care.

The standard of care is reasonable behaviour under the circumstances, and there
can be no responsibility for negligence without proving both a duty of care and a breach of
that obligation. When a doctor behaves in a way that falls short of the standard of reasonable
care, it puts them in violation of medical malpractice laws. This means that they are liable,
not because the patient was injured, but because the doctor's actions caused the damage. Even
if the patient dies or develops a persistent illness, the doctor will not be held liable for
negligence as long as he treats the patient with the necessary care and skill and by accepted
medical standards.23

The objective standard for determining whether a duty has been broken may
occasionally vary. The following factors must be taken into account by the court when
determining whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of
harm:

 The likelihood that the risk of harm would materialise if no precautions were taken;
 The likely seriousness of the harm;
 The burden of taking such precautions; and
 The social utility of the activity that poses the risk of harm.

9.2 Omission

23
Linden AM. Canadian tort law, 6th ed. Toronto: Butter worths; p. 284-99, 1997
 P a g e | 14

Two different kinds of omissions exist. Secondly, failing to take the necessary
safeguards would be considered negligent conduct. Second, it might be used to describe
passive inactivity, which is when no action is taken. The basic rule is that a person is under
no obligation to intervene to stop the damage from happening to others. Normally, one does
not have a responsibility to provide assistance or stop injury to a person from an independent
cause, but one always must refrain from activities that risk the safety of others. Broadly
speaking, no duty of care may be owed in connection with pure omissions, or actions that, if
done, would lessen or avoid injury to another person.

In tort cases, it is sufficient for the defendant to demonstrate that the quality of care
and the level of skill used were those of a typical competent medical professional using a
typical level of professional competence. A defendant accused of carelessness is exonerated
from the allegation if he or she acted by customary and accepted practice.

9.3 Error of judgement

A doctor's error in judgement (such as an incorrect diagnosis or the improper

course of therapy) would constitute negligence if it was a mistake that a reasonably
competent professional medical practitioner would not have made. The reality is that
depending on the nature of the error, a mistake in judgement may or may not be considered
irresponsible. In M/S Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia 24, the Supreme Court
noted that a judgement of negligence would invariably follow a serious medical error. When
a consultant assigns duty to a junior employee while knowing that the employee couldn't do
the job well, the consultant may have committed negligence.

In the case of AchutraoHaribhauKhodwa v. State of Maharashtra25, a mop was accidentally

left in the abdomen of the female patient after surgery. She required a second operation due
to peritonitis, however, she died after the procedure. As the physician failed to provide a
plausible explanation for why the woman's mop was left within her abdomen, liability for
carelessness was placed on him.

In the instance of Laxman Balkrishna Joshi 26, the patient's death was brought on by
shock brought on by the doctor's effort to reduce the fracture without taking the simple

24
AIR 1998 SC 1801
25
AIR 1996 SC 2377
26
Supra n. 25.
 P a g e | 15

precaution of providing the patient anaesthetic. The doctor was found responsible for
damages after being found negligent.

In Vinitha Ashok v. Lakshmi 27, the patient's uterus had to be removed to eliminate
the pregnancy without using ultrasonography. Ultrasonography would not have been able to
detect an ectopic pregnancy, according to expert testimony, yet some textbooks said
otherwise. Ultrasonography was not performed in the general practice in the region where the
doctor worked. Hence, even if two perspectives would be plausible, no fault was imputed on
this basis.

So, if a doctor accused of carelessness can demonstrate that his actions were in line
with accepted practice, he can release himself from responsibility.

9.4 Consent

In the context of a doctor-patient relationship, consent refers to the patient's written

authorization for a medical professional to perform an act, such as a diagnostic, surgical, or
therapeutic operation28. A fully educated patient can participate in decisions regarding his
medical treatment through the procedure of informed consent. It stems from the patient's
moral obligation to participate in his or her treatment as well as the patient's legal and ethical
right to control what happens to their body.

This should be a conscious and informed waiver; patients should be made aware
that they have the option to request a different person receive the information on their behalf
or to request to be told later. It implies that a patient should be aware of how receiving
therapy may affect his health. Information that a doctor is required by law and ethics to share
with his patients.

This essential idea, which is founded on autonomy, is first expressed in the Nuremberg Code
of 1947. In response to medical and experimental in numerous research investigations, the
Nuremberg Code was implemented soon after World War Two.29 The code requires that
human subjects give their free, informed consent. Similarly to this, the 1964 World Medical
Association Declaration of Helsinki emphasised the significance of gaining freely provided

27
AIR 2001 SC 3914
28
Samira Kohli v. Dr Prabha Manchanda, Appeal (civil) 1949 of 2004
29
Nuremberg Code 1947
 P a g e | 16

informed permission for medical research by appropriately educating the patients about the
study's objectives, procedures, anticipated benefits, potential risks, and discomforts.30

If a physician assaults his patient by operating on them without getting their

permission, he is responsible for paying damages31. The patient or his legal guardian can take
part in and maintain control over the medical care they get thanks to the informed consent
procedure. Without the patient's agreement, medical treatment is considered to constitute
battery and is punishable by law.

The following topics should be covered to order to obtain fully informed consent, according
to universal consensus:32

1. The decision's and action's nature

2. Acceptable substitutes to the suggested intervention

3. The pertinent dangers, advantages, and uncertainties associated with each option

4. Evaluation of the patient's comprehension

5. The patient's consent to the intervention

Consent is deemed genuine and "real" when the definition of the elements of consent includes
reference to the patient.33

 The patient provides it freely and without being forced;

 The patient is competent in giving consent; and
 The patient has at least a sufficient degree of knowledge regarding the nature of the
procedure to which he is giving his assent.
 A crucial component of informed consent is the ability to provide legal permission.

As a general rule, no medical procedure, even one of a minor kind, should be

performed without the patient's prior agreement. This agreement may be verbally
communicated or it may be assumed, like when the patient shows up for the
examination and agrees to the recommended protocol. The patient's permission must
30
Declaration of Helsinki 1964
31
. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N E 92 N Y 1914
32
Andrew Grubb, Principles of Medical Law, Para 3.04, p 133
33
Salgo vs. Leland Stanford [154 Cal. App. 2d.560 (1957)],
 P a g e | 17

be voluntary and deemed competent to make the specific decision for it to be

accepted.

According to the definition of consent provided in section 13 of the Indian

Contract Act of 1872, two or more people are considered to consent when they agree
on the same matter in the same sense. However, this Act also stipulates in Section 11
that only individuals who are of and over the age of 18 are capable of entering into a
contract. According to the Indian Majority Act, parties are typically considered
competent if they meet the following criteria:
 have reached the age of 18,
 are of sound mind,
 are not barred from running for office by any statute to which they are subject.

Treatment without the patient's permission is permitted under section 92 of

the Indian Criminal Code if the patient is dangerously ill, mentally ill, and
unconscious. Full disclosure obligations could not be applicable if the amount of time
needed for disclosure would put the patient or others at significant risk of harm.

9.5 Discussion

The ethics of those in the medical field are unmistakably demonstrated by the
ancient text of Charaka's oath. The legal implications of medicine and medical malpractice,
however, have grown significantly in recent years. The previous several decades have seen a
growth in public awareness of the basic rights protected by the Constitution, putting the
medical community under scrutiny from both the public and the judiciary.

Recent instances involving doctor violence towards patient families have gained attention.
The Consumer Protection Act, which was enacted by the Indian Parliament in 1986, has
always been a powerful instrument for consumers in the battle against the dangers of any
service that is offered to them.

The general public is now more aware of it, and if ever an unfavourable incident occurred,
physicians or hospital administrators were given the whole blame. The doctor-patient
 P a g e | 18

relationship has drastically worsened as a result of all of these factors, and lawsuits against
doctors are rising every day. Hence, we must understand the scope of instances involving
medical negligence and the verdicts reached in these circumstances.

10.CONCLUSION
As we've seen, the idea of medical negligence is merely one whose
fundamental premise is ingrained in tort law. The current legal stance on a doctor's
criminal liability is that it cannot be established unless there is a prima facie case of
extreme carelessness and negligence. A few guidelines have been provided based on
the interpretation of Supreme Court rulings, which, if effectively put into practice, can
assist the courts in developing the law on medical negligence, which is currently beset
by numerous challenges and frequently comes to a standstill in several cases. For the
quick and affordable resolution of such disputes, the Consumer Protection Act is
available. Each claim brought before the consumer courts are not subject to a filing
fee. Therefore impoverished people who have received subpar care from doctors,
hospitals, or nursing homes may readily seek reparation.

11. REFERENCES.
 P a g e | 19

1. SonaliChalakh& Sunil Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh: Role of Consumer

ProtectionAct in Medical Practice International Ayurvedic Medical Journal.
2016 4; (12); 3674-3681
2. Reddy KSN; Medical laws and ethics; The essentials of Forensic Medicine
and Toxicology; K. Suguna Devi, Hyderabad; 28th edition 2009; 49-50
3. Consumer Protection Act and Medical profession [2009?] [Cited 2023 Feb12].
Available from URL http://www.medindia.net/doctors/cpa/CPA.asp
4. Prakash C, Roy Chaudhary SK, Bala R, Shrivastav B, Rai A, Roham.
Consumer Protection Act (CPA/COPRA) Related to Medical Profession.
JIAFM 2007; 29(3): 39-41
5. Dr. Aneesh V. Pillai. Determination of Damages in Medical Negligence
Cases: An Overview. School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science
and Technology, Kerala
6. Chaudhury RNP, Consumer Protection Law: Provisions & Procedure, Deep
&Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd, Delhi
7. Ramsay, Iain, Consumer Law and Policy, 3rd Edition, Hart Publishers.
8. Mathiharan K; Modi‟s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology; LexisNexis
Butterworths Nagpur; Twenty-Third Edition; Page no 161
9. Supreme Court‟s Landmark Judgment: Docs can be Sued for Compensation;
Hindustan Times, Nov.14, 1995. 14. Planning Commission Skeptical About
Govt. “Consumer Right Day” Initiative; Times of India; Dec. 29, 2000: 3.
10. Winfield and Jal ICZ, Tort,5th , p.4
11. Charlesrworth& Percy, Negligence, 19th ed, p. l6
12. Gupta, Kiran, “The standard of care and proof in the medical profession, A
shift from Bolam to Bolitho”, XIV-XV National Capital Law Journal 1(2011-
2012).
13. Stephenson v. Southern Pac. Co.(1894) 102 Cal. 143, 147.
14. Jackson & Powell, Medical Negligence Litigation: Time for Reform, PS
Ranjan, Medical Law and Ethics.
15. Linden AM. Canadian tort law, 6th ed. Toronto: Butter worths; 1997
16. Samira Kohli v. Dr Prabha Manchanda, Appeal (civil) 1949 of 2004
17. Nuremberg Code 1947.
18. Declaration of Helsinki 1964
19. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N E 92 N Y 1914
20. Andrew Grubb, Principles of Medical Law.
21. Salgo vs. Leland Stanford [154 Cal. App. 2d.560 (1957)],