Case Analysis on Poly Medicure Ltd. v. Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2025 INSC 1314): Interpreting

A revolutionary shift in the Indian consumer protection jurisprudence in the context of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA) is the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in Poly Medicure Ltd. v. Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on November 13, 2025 (2025 INSC 1314) on consumer protection law. The exclusion of commercial entities in the definition of consumer is discussed in the case, where the transactions of B2B software deals are challenged within the growing controversies in the digital economy. An appeal by Brillio to maintainability on commercial purpose grounds was dismissed by the State Commission (August 19, 2019) and affirmed by the NCDRC (June 15, 2020). The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed that the purchases that increase business efficiency and profitability, do not qualify as a consumer proceeding, but rather, proceeds to civil courts. The central issues to be considered were the concept of interpreting commercial purpose vs. the exception of self-employment, the question of whether non-resale automation is a personal use or not, and the applicability of the profit nexus test to B2B cases. It steered clear of pitfalls, including hybrid transactions, excessive self-employment claims, and forum shopping, through a fact specific profit nexus analysis which made a distinction between corporate profit facilitation and personal livelihood aids, as in Harsolia Motors (2023). Consequences are far reaching: it will limit congestion on forums, encourage arbitration in B2B deals, discourage abuse after Harsolia, and will be consistent with the CPA 2019 changes on individual protection in Indian 350 billion e-commerce market by 2026. Although enhancing the spirit of CPA, it allows small firms to see lapses in its coverage, calling on policy changes to promote digital equity without reducing remedial zeal.