{
  "id": 8366382,
  "title": "Column | Why Indian consumer law holds doctors accountable, not lawyers",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/19/column-why-indian-consumer-law-holds-doctors-accountable-not-lawyers",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-09-19T03:00:53.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Indian Express",
    "slug": "the-indian-express",
    "url": "https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/column-why-indian-consumer-law-holds-doctors-accountable-lawyers-10884244/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "In India, doctors are held accountable for their medical services under consumer protection laws, whereas lawyers are exempt from such liability. This distinction stems from previous court cases that defined professional negligence, which included medical treatment within consumer protection law's scope. The curative petition, typically available to the Supreme Court for post-review remedies, was refused in the case Medico Legal Society of India v. Bar of Indian Lawyers & Ors. on September 9, 2026. This denial places medical professionals back in a long-standing controversy regarding accountability. Accountability for medical professionals predates consumer protection laws, as evidenced by the Supreme Court case Dr Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr Trimbak Bapu Godbole (1968), where a doctor was found liable for a patient's death due to negligence. The court emphasized the duty of care, requiring reasonable skill, knowledge, and diligence. In consumer law cases, the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirmed that private medical practitioners, hospitals, and nursing homes could be held liable for unsatisfactory services. This ruling was reinforced by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Cosmopolitan Hospitals v. Vasantha P. Nair (1992), which determined that paid medical services are considered a \"service\" under the Act, subjecting them to consumer remedies. However, the Madras High Court in Dr C S Subramanian v. Kumarasamy (1994) disagreed, arguing that medical diagnosis and treatment should not be subject to summary adjudication and could hinder medical practice. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that medical consultation, diagnosis, and treatment provided for consideration fall within the definition of \"service,\" excluding any relationship of employment between the parties.",
  "summary": null,
  "key_points": [
    "Indian consumer law holds doctors accountable for medical services.",
    "Lawyers exempt from medical liability under consumer protection laws."
  ],
  "editors_take": "The distinction in Indian consumer law holding doctors accountable while exempting lawyers reflects a judicially established precedent that views medical services as a consumer-protected service, but not legal services.",
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}