Consumer Protection Act for doctors and negligence cases Who can file, what counts as negligence, how a case runs and what protects you.

Yes, a patient can take you to consumer court. The Consumer Protection Act for doctors works the way it does for any paid service. A patient who paid for consultation or treatment is a consumer, and "any act of negligence" that causes loss or injury is a deficiency in service. The complaint usually goes to the District Commission, must ordinarily be filed within two years, and is judged against the standard of an ordinary competent doctor in your field. Your strongest protection is a complete, unaltered record of what you saw, advised and prescribed.

Can a patient file a consumer complaint against a doctor?

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (No. 35 of 2019) defines a consumer in section 2(7)(ii) as any person who "hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised", including a beneficiary of that service, such as a family member brought in by the person paying. Section 2(42) defines service as "service of any description which is made available to potential users", and excludes only "the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service".

Whether doctors fall inside that definition was settled by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, decided on 13 November 1995 ((1995) 6 SCC 651), under the identical definition in the 1986 Act. Its first conclusion reads: "Service rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner (except where the doctor renders service free of charge to every patient or under a contract of personal service), by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment, both medicinal and surgical, would fall within the ambit of 'service'". The Court also held that being under the disciplinary control of a medical council "would not exclude the services rendered by them from the ambit of the Act."

Three of the Court's later conclusions matter for a private clinic. A doctor's relationship with a patient is a contract "for personal services", which is not excluded. Where a clinic charges those who can pay and treats others free, "Free service, would also be 'service' and the recipient a 'consumer' under the Act." And where an insurer pays the bill, the treatment "cannot be regarded as service rendered free of charge". Free service is outside the Act only where nobody is charged. A medical officer's service to an employer under a contract of employment is outside it too.

Is V.P. Shantha still good law after the 2024 lawyers' case?

This is where most of the confusion comes from. On 14 May 2024, in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi, a two-judge bench held that a complaint alleging deficiency in service against advocates "would not be maintainable under the CP Act, 2019", because a lawyer's service is under "a contract of personal service". The same judgment said V.P. Shantha "deserves to be revisited and considered by a larger bench" and referred it to the Chief Justice of India.

A three-judge bench answered that reference on 7 November 2024. Its order says that since the Court had already held the legal profession outside the Act, "irrespective of the finding in the case of Indian Medical Association (Supra), the reference to a larger Bench was not necessary." Whether other professionals can be covered, it said, "can be considered in an appropriate case, having a factual foundation for deciding the same." V.P. Shantha was not overruled.

A fresh writ petition, Association of Healthcare Providers (India) v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 110/2026), is pending. On 10 February 2026 a bench led by the Chief Justice issued notice, returnable on 6 April 2026. We found no final order in it as of 26 October 2026. Until the Supreme Court or Parliament says otherwise, plan on the basis that a paying patient can bring a consumer complaint against you.

What counts as deficiency in service by a doctor?

Section 2(11) defines deficiency as "any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance" required by law or undertaken by contract, and says it includes "(i) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer; and (ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer".

The second limb deserves attention at an OPD desk. A complaint does not have to prove bad treatment if it can show that the patient was not told something relevant, such as a known risk of a procedure, the reason for a referral, or that a test was advised and refused. The way to answer that limb is a note written at the time. The paperwork around the visit counts too. A receipt that does not match the visit, or a prescription without your registration number, hands the other side an easy point even when the treatment was sound.

The Bolam test in India: when is a doctor negligent?

The standard comes from Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, decided by a three-judge bench on 5 August 2005 ((2005) 6 SCC 1). The Court summed up its conclusions in eight points. Point (4) says: "The test for determining medical negligence as laid down in Bolam's case [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582, 586 holds good in its applicability in India." The judgment quotes the rule as stated in Halsbury's Laws of England: a doctor is not "guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art, even though a body of adverse opinion also existed among medical men."

For a clinic doctor, the most useful lines in a Jacob Mathew case summary are in point (2): "A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional." A doctor who follows "a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day" is not liable "merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available". The standard of care is judged "in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trial", and a charge based on missing equipment fails if the equipment "was not generally available at that particular time". Point (3) sets the yardstick as "an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession".

In Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, decided on 10 February 2010, the Court distilled the case law into a list of principles in paragraph 94. Four of them are the ones a commission applies most directly to clinic practice:

• "The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires." (III)
• "A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field." (IV)
• "In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor." (V)
• "Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession." (VII)

Those principles assume the commission can see what you did and why. A choice between two accepted courses protects you only if the record shows you made it.

Civil or criminal: the higher bar for prosecution

A consumer complaint is civil. Criminal negligence is a different and much higher test. Jacob Mathew point (5) says: "For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e. gross or of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution." Point (7) adds that the prosecution must show the doctor did or failed to do something "which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do."

The judgment also laid down guidelines for prosecuting doctors. A private complaint "may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the Court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor". The investigating officer should "obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in government service qualified in that branch". And a doctor "may not be arrested in a routine manner (simply because a charge has been levelled against him)."

Jacob Mathew was decided under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 repeals the IPC (section 358), and its section 106(1) now covers causing death by a rash or negligent act. It sets a lower maximum where the act is "done by a registered medical practitioner while performing medical procedure": imprisonment up to two years and fine, against five years for others. If a police complaint is threatened, call a lawyer that day.

Does the commission need an expert opinion before issuing notice?

In Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, decided on 17 February 2009, the Supreme Court directed that when a consumer forum or criminal court receives a complaint against a doctor, it "should first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctors, specialized in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed, and only after that doctor or committee reports that there is a prima facie case of medical negligence should notice be then issued".

That direction did not last as a general rule. A year later, in V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital (8 March 2010), another bench held that the direction was contrary to an earlier larger-bench decision, Dr. J.J. Merchant, and said the Court "is not bound by the general direction given" in D'Souza. It held that a commission must first conclude that "the case is complicated enough to require the opinion of an expert", and warned that if every case needed expert evidence "the efficacy of the remedy provided under this Act will be unnecessarily burdened". So expect a commission to decide for itself whether an expert is needed. In a simple case it may read your records and decide without one.

Which consumer commission hears the complaint, and the limits

The Act sets up three tiers. It allows the Centre to change the money limits by rule, and the Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021 (G.S.R. 912(E), 30 December 2021) did so. The limit is set by "the value of the goods or services paid as consideration". For an OPD visit that is what the patient paid you, so nearly every consumer court complaint against a doctor in a small clinic starts at the District Commission.

Before these rules, the Act's own limits were ₹1 crore for the District Commission and ₹10 crore for the State Commission. A notice that quotes the old figures is out of date. Late appeals can be admitted for "sufficient cause", but treat the periods above as the working deadlines.

How a consumer court complaint against a doctor runs

1. Filing. The patient, a recognised consumer association or a government body files with the commission (s.35(1)). The Act allows filing "electronically in such manner as may be prescribed". The first portal for this, e-Daakhil, went live on 7 September 2020. Since 1 January 2025 the Department of Consumer Affairs has run e-Jagriti (e-jagriti.gov.in), which PIB says integrates e-Daakhil and the older systems and is operational across the National Commission and all States and Union Territories. Users can file complaints, pay, join virtual hearings and track the case there.
2. Time limit. Section 69(1) bars a complaint not filed "within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen". Section 69(2) lets the commission admit a late complaint if the patient shows sufficient cause, and it must record its reasons for condoning the delay.
3. Admission. The commission decides whether to admit the complaint, ordinarily within 21 days of filing, after hearing the complainant. If it does not decide in that time, the complaint is deemed admitted (s.36(2) and (3)).
4. Mediation, if offered. At the first hearing or later, if a settlement looks possible, the commission may ask both sides to consent in writing within five days to mediation under Chapter V (s.37). The Act lets the rules exclude some kinds of case, so ask your lawyer whether yours can go. Mediation happens in the consumer mediation cell attached to the commission (s.79), and a settlement is written down, signed and recorded in an order (ss.80, 81).
5. Your written version. For a complaint about services, the commission sends you a copy and directs you to give "his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days" (s.38(3)(a)). If you do not reply in time, it can proceed on the evidence before it. This is the deadline that matters most.
6. Evidence and hearing. Both sides file documents and affidavits. Your OPD record, prescription copy, receipt and any consent or referral note are your evidence. The commission decides whether it needs an expert (see above).
7. Decision and appeal. PIB, describing the Act, says the commission should try to decide a complaint within three months of notice where no testing is needed. Appeals follow the table above.

What a commission will read in your file

A commission decides on the documents in front of it. Across the judgments above, the questions come back to the same few documents: what was recorded, what the patient was told, what was prescribed and whether it could be read, and whether the patient was sent on when the case was beyond the clinic.

Your record-keeping duties come from the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. Regulation 1.3.1 requires indoor records for 3 years in the Appendix 3 proforma, and regulation 1.3.2 requires copies to be issued within 72 hours of a request from the patient, an authorised attendant or a legal authority. Regulation 1.4.1 requires your registration number on prescriptions, certificates and money receipts. Regulation 1.5 asks you to prescribe generic names "legibly and preferably in capital letters", and regulation 7.16 requires written consent before an operation. How long to keep OPD papers, and what to keep, is in our post on how long a clinic must keep medical records.

What a complete OPD record contains

• The Appendix 3 fields: patient name, age, sex, address, date of first visit, a clinical note of the case, provisional diagnosis, investigations advised with reports, diagnosis after investigation, advice, follow-up, and your signature and name.
• The date and time of the visit, matching the token and the receipt.
• A copy of the prescription as given, with generic names written legibly and your registration number.
• What you advised and what the patient chose: a test refused, an admission declined, a second opinion suggested. One line in the patient's words is enough.
• For any procedure in the clinic, written consent signed before it starts, with the risks you explained.
• Any referral: to whom, why, how urgently, and that the patient was told.
• Reports the patient brought back, or a note of the result.
• The receipt for the fee, which shows the visit happened and what was paid.

If you are moving from paper to software, the questions to ask any vendor about corrections and export are in our EMR software checklist.

What to do when a legal notice or complaint arrives

A lawyer's notice may come before any complaint. A commission notice comes after a complaint is admitted. Either way, what you do in the first week shapes the case.

1. Note the date you received it and the reply deadline it states. For a commission notice on a services complaint, the Act gives thirty days, extendable by up to fifteen.
2. Inform your indemnity insurer in the way and within the time your policy says. Read the claims-notification clause and send a copy of the notice in writing.
3. Do not alter, rewrite or add to the records of that visit. If something truly needs correcting, add a dated note and leave the original readable. A changed record discovered later does more damage than an incomplete one.
4. Gather the full file: OPD card, prescription copy, receipt, consent forms, referral notes, reports, appointment or token entries and any messages with the patient. Keep copies in one place.
5. Do not reply to the patient or the patient's lawyer on your own. Contact your IMA branch or a lawyer who handles consumer cases, and let them draft the reply.
6. If the patient asks for copies of records, issue them within 72 hours as regulation 1.3.2 requires, and keep a note of what was given and when.
7. Keep talking to the patient politely if they come back. Do not discuss the case on social media or in doctors' groups.

Where professional indemnity insurance comes in

A consumer case costs money even when you win: a lawyer, time away from the OPD, and sometimes an award. Professional indemnity insurance exists to cover that. Policies differ on what counts as a claim, when you must tell the insurer, and whether legal costs are inside or on top of the cover limit, so read yours before you need it. Our guide to professional indemnity insurance for doctors in India covers how to choose a policy.