INTRODUCTION
The Indian judiciary plays a critical role in regulating the medical profession through several mechanisms that ensure patient rights and ethical medical practices.1 A significant aspect of this regulation is the establishment of a legal standard for medical negligence, which defines the accountability of healthcare providers. Moreover, consumer protection laws have been expanded to encompass healthcare services, thereby enhancing the framework for protecting patients. The judiciary’s interpretation of laws, particularly Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has been pivotal in affirming the right to health and the importance of informed consent for patients. This interpretation underlines the ethical obligation of medical practitioners to ensure that patients are fully informed about their treatment choices. In addition to setting legal standards, the judiciary adjudicates cases involving compensation for damages resulting from medical negligence, thereby providing a means of redress to affected patients. It also enforces criminal liability in instances of gross negligence, thereby deterring malpractice within the profession. The judiciary further supports ethical codes that govern medical practices, reinforcing the framework for accountability within the healthcare system. Through these actions, the Indian judiciary significantly contributes to safeguarding patient rights and promoting ethical standards in healthcare delivery. In India, the role of tort laws, contract laws, criminal laws, and consumer laws is important in regulating the medical professions. The study examines the aforementioned aspects.
REGULATING MEDICAL PROFESSIONS THROUGH TORTS, CONTRACT, AND CRIMINAL LAW: ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY
The judiciary establishes the legal benchmark for medical negligence by assessing the duty of care that a doctor is obligated to fulfill. This evaluation involves determining whether the doctor has not acted in accordance with the “ordinary skill of an ordinary competent,” meaning that Courts analyze the level of skill and care expected from a healthcare professional in similar circumstances. The Supreme Court thus held in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha2, that “it is well established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular article.”3 If a deviation from this standard is found, it can be grounds for a negligence claim. Under the law of tort, various principles have been ruthlessly applied to medical professionals in the name of “medico-legal” cases.4 The medico-legal evidence has significantly harmed the pursuit of justice, highlighting its detrimental impact on legal outcomes. Particularly, the medico-legal evidence has caused much injury to the cause of justice. Problems in medico-legal practices are many. 5 It has been stated that a scientific medical witness should make the justice system more scientific but it is often overlooked by the law, resulting in a disservice to both the legal process and a significant segment of society.6 It was reported that private practicing doctors “are harassed by the police and are, therefore, reluctant to accept the roadside casualties”.7 There are also borderline cases. Therefore, there is a need to “provide medico-legal instrumentalities and institutional facilities for a more reasonable and practical handling of numerous borderline” 8 cases.
Under the law of tort, various principles are applied to determine tortious liability. Thus, the law of tort established that a person whose life was tortuously shortened was entitled to recover for lost earning capacity on the basis of his pre-accident life expectancy. 9 To come into conclusion whether there should be tortious liability the “test of reasonable foresight,” “duty to care” or “standard of care,” “loss or injury caused” are some important principles often applied. In a tort case, the plaintiff must show that the loss or injury was suffered. In Sidhraj Dhadda v. State of Rajasthan,10 the Rajasthan High Court observed: “where a claim is brought for the tort, damage is a necessary element of the cause for action. If, therefore, the plaintiff shows that the doctor was negligent, but fails to prove that any loss or injury was caused thereby, then he will not even be entitled to damage and his claim will be dismissed.”11 The “test of reasonable foresight,” also known as “reasonable foreseeability,” is a crucial legal principle employed mainly in tort law, particularly in negligence cases. This principle is utilized to ascertain the liability of a defendant for the outcomes of their actions by considering whether a reasonable individual, situated in the defendant’s position, could have predicted the harm that arose from their behaviour. In essence, it evaluates the defendant’s ability to foresee potential consequences stemming from their conduct, which is paramount in determining accountability in legal scenarios.12 The test of reasonable foresight, however, has frequently been criticised because there cannot be a legal responsibility when damage can be anticipated; otherwise, there would be an affirmative duty to rescue, a duty to fence, and a duty to exercise caution for trespassers who might be anticipated. Additionally, it was claimed that this ambiguous test was used without consulting a policy. Foresight cannot have a clear definition in the normative domain of torts; instead, it rests on the judicial opinion of what standard is acceptable to demand, which varies from case to case.13 Therefore, certain authors prefer the test of “remoteness of damage” in place of the “test of reasonable foresight.” 14
The “effect of duty to care” is a fundamental principle within negligence law that carries considerable legal consequences. It establishes a foundation for liability, suggesting that if there is a breach of this duty, an individual or organization may face financial damages. Additionally, the concept of duty to care plays a pivotal role in shaping professional standards and influencing the practices adopted by various organizations, thereby ensuring that a certain level of care is maintained in professional relationships and activities. However, how far doctrine of “duty to care” is relevant today in the medical profession, where there is a dynamic change in science and technology? The recent trends in tort law reflect a significant evolution, paralleling the societal transition from a straightforward rural existence to a multifaceted industrialised and urbanized environment. These developments underscore the dynamic nature of law and its capacity to adapt to new societal conditions.15 The principle of “standard of care” is often applied to determine whether professional obligations have been met and failure to meet it is considered negligence in a legal context. Proof of a doctor’s violation of the standard of care does not alone establish liability for negligence; a legal duty to exercise skill must first be demonstrated. While a doctor’s experience may elevate the expected standard, a lack of experience does not lower it. Specialists must meet the care standards expected in their field. The challenge lies in balancing societal protection with the risks of discouraging practice.16 Besides this, varying the standard of care involves adjusting the expected level of prudence based on circumstances, professional standards, and individual roles, such as a higher standard for a doctor compared to an average person. Emergencies may also necessitate adaptations to the standard of care.17
Therefore, the blind application of the duty to care theory, loss or injury theory, or reasonable foresight theory may harm the medical profession. Finding the relationship between the frequency of acts or omissions that result in tortious liability and the frequency of such claims being satisfied, whether through legal proceedings or not, is the fundamental problem.18 Adverse effects of tort law principles in the medical professions typically manifest as increased litigation risk, heightened defensive medicine practices, and potential impacts on patient care. The legal framework governing torts includes negligence, which imposes a duty of care on medical professionals. When healthcare providers face potential lawsuits, they may engage in defensive practices, such as ordering unnecessary tests or treatments to avoid liability, which can inflate healthcare costs and may compromise the quality of patient care. Moreover, the fear of litigation can chill physicians’ willingness to adopt innovative or less conventional treatments, given the perceived risk of being sued. Additionally, tort law principles can foster an adversarial environment, impacting the doctor-patient relationship. As a result, while torts aim to provide justice for victims of malpractice, their unintended consequences may hinder the effectiveness and accessibility of medical services, necessitating a careful re-evaluation of the interplay between tort law and healthcare practices. Thus, defenders of the regulatory framework, for example, medical professionals, contend that courts, which rely on common law principles and judicial remedies, are insufficiently equipped to address the complexities and challenges posed by societal risks. This perspective highlights a perceived inadequacy in the judicial system’s ability to effectively respond to contemporary risk scenarios. The argument suggests that a more robust regulatory approach may be necessary to handle such risks adequately, as traditional legal mechanisms might not be responsive enough to the rapidly evolving nature of societal challenges.19
In the context of the medical profession, the law of contract is pivotal as it delineates the structure and expectations of the doctor-patient relationship. This legal framework is employed to outline specific terms regarding the nature of services provided, the obligations of both parties, and the stipulations concerning payment for medical services rendered. Furthermore, contract law governs the interactions and partnerships between various healthcare providers and organizations, ensuring that their collaborative efforts are legally sound. This regulatory aspect not only facilitates smooth operational processes within the medical field but also enforces compliance with established healthcare regulations and standards, thus safeguarding the integrity and reliability of medical services. Overall, the application of contract law is fundamental in promoting accountability and clarity within healthcare delivery. The law of contract is based on the principles of “agreement between the parties for consideration.” In Annayya Janakirama Bhagavathar v. Annayya Narasimha Bhagavathar,20 the Madras High Court held that “an agreement between the parties for consideration which can itself be enforced and the suit claim is referable to that agreement as evidenced by the prayer.” However, the scope and dimension of the liability of the health professional for the acts of breach of contractual obligation is very narrow when compared to other legal options. The reason behind this is that, in the contemporary era to regulate medical professions, a large number of specific laws are in force in India. Therefore, the application of breach of contract law in medical cases is limited. A health professional’s liability under breach of contractual obligation is more limited compared to that arising from negligence or medical malpractice claims. Contract law focuses on the failure to fulfil specific terms agreed upon in a contract. In contrast, negligence or malpractice encompasses a broader spectrum of failures, which includes the failure to maintain the appropriate standard of care. This broader basis of liability means that even if the explicit or implied terms of a contract are met, a health professional can still be held liable for injuries resulting from inadequate care. Medical professions are also regulated through a dual system involving professional regulatory bodies and criminal law, primarily in cases of gross negligence or specific legal violations. The interplay between these systems aims to ensure professional standards while addressing serious misconduct that warrants criminal sanctions.
REGULATING MEDICAL PROFESSIONS THROUGH CONSUMER LAW: ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY
Regulating medical professions through consumer law involves turning several challenging dichotomies, mainly due to the significant differences between standard form of commercial transactions and the complexities of medical services. This regulation requires a nuanced understanding, as the dynamics of health care do not align neatly with typical consumer interactions, posing unique difficulties in enforcement and compliance. Therefore, it has been argued by critics that “dichotomy between the ethics of medicine and the ethics of business is inherent in much of the current thinking about medicine and business.” 21 Each consumer attribute is represented in binary form, where each attribute is categorized into two distinct categories, effectively creating a dichotomous health care system. This approach simplifies the analysis of consumer behavior by clearly distinguishing between two opposing attributes, enabling more straightforward data processing and interpretation. Thus, “increasing the level of cost sharing may create inequities in access to health care and yield adverse health outcomes for those who have health problems.”22 In the context of consumer-provider relationships, the principle of “caveat emptor” suggests that consumers now possess significantly greater bargaining power compared to the past. This shift allows consumers, under specific circumstances influenced by a changing social structure within the health system, to engage in a competitive marketplace for healthcare services. As these structural relationships evolve, the conduct of both healthcare professionals and their clients is expected to change accordingly.23 But the phrase “caveat emptor” is “not a fair summary of the law.”24
In India, the healthcare sector and medical professions are governed by the regulations set forth in consumer law, specifically through the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. This Act establishes a legal framework that allows patients to seek redress for grievances related to medical services, thereby placing medical professionals under consumer protection guidelines. By doing so, the act aims to enhance accountability and ensure that patients’ rights are safeguarded, thereby promoting the quality of healthcare provided in the country. But, how far regulating medical professionals through the consumer redressal system is justified is an issue in the contemporary era. It has been argued, therefore, that there is a dichotomy between “service” and “care”. The medical professionals are taking health care only not performing service. Consumer law encompasses regulations that govern the buying and selling of goods and standard of services, particularly emphasizing key concepts such as “deficiency in service,” which refers to failing to meet expected performance standards, and “warranty,” which guarantees that products will function as promised for a certain period. Additionally, it addresses “unfair trade practices,” encompassing deceptive, fraudulent, or unethical behavior in commercial activities. The law aims to ensure predictability in outcomes for consumers, thereby providing a framework that protects their rights and interests during transactions.
The application of consumer law to medical services has generated considerable legal discussion, especially within the context of India. This debate encompasses the rights of patients as consumers, the responsibilities of healthcare providers, and the implications of legal frameworks governing the provision of medical services. Key issues often revolve around the accessibility of healthcare, the quality and standard of medical care, and the recourse available to patients in instances of perceived negligence or malpractice. As consumer rights evolve, the interface between legal principles and healthcare service delivery remains critical for ensuring that patients receive adequate protection and that healthcare providers adhere to recognized standards. In 1995, the Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association v. V. P. Shantha,25 confirmed that medical services are subject to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the Court specified that services provided by medical practitioners without any charge to the consumer are exempt from the coverage of the Act. Recently, in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi,26 the Supreme Court excluded lawyers from the Consumer Protection Act 2019, categorising legal services as a “contract of personal service”. As a necessary corollary, a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising the legal profession would not be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. This judgment also questioned the rationale of the 1995 decision regarding doctors, suggesting the issue requires reconsideration by a larger bench, creating current uncertainty in the legal landscape. Thus, the fundamental dichotomy is whether healthcare is a unique, ethically governed domain that requires specialized oversight, or a service industry where patients deserve the same legal protections and recourse as any other consumer.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it can be said that the regulatory framework governing medical professions in India seeks to ensure the standardization of healthcare services, uphold ethical standards, and safeguard patient rights. While the legal structures, including the National Medical, Dental, Homoeopathy, Nursing and Midwifery Commissions, etc. establish the foundation, the actual effectiveness and implementation of these laws can be inconclusive and problematic. This mixture of strong legal guidelines paired with the challenges of enforcement leads to variability in healthcare quality and ethical practices across the medical field. In short, the laws in question have played an important role in creating a thorough legal framework. However, their effectiveness in practice is frequently compromised by enforcement challenges. This indicates that while the legal framework is healthy, but practical implementation remains a significant concern that affects the overall efficacy of these laws. The primary challenge in regulating medical professionals is the inconsistent and inadequate enforcement of existing laws, which varies significantly across different states and institutions. This lack of uniformity can lead to disparities in the quality of care and accountability among medical practitioners, complicating efforts to ensure that all professionals observe to the same standards of practice. In many rural hospitals, a significant absence of essential safety infrastructure. This deficit not only heightens anxiety levels among medical professionals but also exacerbates burnout rates among doctors. Furthermore, the lack of safety measures poses increased risks, thereby compromising the overall safety of both healthcare providers and patients. Addressing these concerns is crucial for improving mental well-being among staff and ensuring a safer environment in healthcare settings. Keeping in view the aforementioned findings, the following reforms in the regulatory framework of medical professions in India are worth considering.
The strengthening of regulatory bodies is crucial in the medical profession. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, exempts advocates, which implies that practitioners in medicine may not be adequately protected under this Act. Hence, under the current framework under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, it may be suggested not to apply the Act upon doctors. The creation of the National Medical Commission, along with other similar commissions, represents a significant advancement in reforming the previously opaque structures like the Medical Council of India. To ensure effectiveness, it is essential to focus on the independent and merit-based functioning of the four autonomous boards established under this commission: The Undergraduate Medical Education Board, the Postgraduate Medical Education Board, the Medical Assessment and Rating Board, and the Ethics and Medical Registration Board. Continuous efforts must be directed towards reinforcing these bodies to uphold the integrity and quality of medical education and practice in the country.
*****
Footnotes
1. See generally, Patricia M. Danzon, “Liability for Medical Malpractice,” 5(3) The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 51-69, (1991).
2. AIR 1996 SC 550.
3. Id., para. 31.
4. BMJ, “Medico-Legal,” 2(1873) The British Medical Journal, 1546-1549 (1896); BMJ, “Medico-Legal,” 1(1989) The British Medical Journal, 379-380 (1899); BMJ, Medico-Legal and Medico-Ethical,” 2 (2086) The British Medical Journal, 1825-1827 (1900); BMJ, “Medico-Legal Applications of Blood Grouping,” (2) 4419 The British Medical Journal, 360-360 (1945).
5. See G. Roche Lynch, “Some Problems in Medico-Legal Practice,” 36(7) The Journal of State Medicine, 410-420, 410 (1928).
6. Stephen M. Macswiney, “Medico-Legal Evidence,” 30 (1867), The British Medical Journal, 492-494, 493 (1867).
7. P. M. Bakshi, “Accident Victims and the Criminal Law,” 31 (4) Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 566-559, 559 (1989).
8. See Walter Bromberg and Hervey M. Cleckley, “The Medico-Legal Dilemma: A Suggested Solution,” 42(6) The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 729-745, 734 (1952).
9. S. M. Waddams, “Damages for Wrongful Death: Has Lord Campbell’s Act Outlived Its Usefulness?” 47(4) The Modern Law Review, 437-453, 439 (1984).
10. AIR 1994 Raj 68.
11. Id., para. 30.
12. See M. J. W. “Tort- Negligence- Nervous Shock- Foresight of Injury,” 11(3) The Cambridge Law Journal, 454-455 (1953).
13. Max Weaver, “A Maze Not a Motorway,” 33(6) The Modern Law Review, 691-694, 692 (1970).
14. See G. S. Pande, “The Test of Reasonable Foreseeability and Its Future in India,” 13(3) Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 443-458, 443 (1971).
15. J. M. Shelat, “Changing Pattern of Law of Tort,” 11(4) Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 403-412, 404 (1969).
16. Stanley Yeo Meng Heong, “The Standard of Care in Medical Negligence Cases,” 25(1) Malaya Law Review, 30-49, 35-36 (1983).
17. See Donal Nolan, “Varying the Standard of Care in Negligence,” 72(3) The Cambridge Law Journal, 651-688 (2013). In this context, the reasonableness of clinical conduct should be evaluated along standard risk-benefit lines, particularly after the involved parties have made their own assessments of the expert opinions presented. This emphasizes the importance of considering individual evaluations in conjunction with established standards when determining the appropriateness of clinical actions. See Harvey Teff, “The Standard of Care in Medical Negligence: Moving on from Bolam?” 18(3) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 473-484 (1998).
18. See S. K. Bhatia, “Specific Problems of Law of Torts in India,” 11(4) Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 510-519 (1969).
19. Douglas A. Kysar, “The Public Life of Private Law: Tort Law as a Risk Regulation Mechanism,” 9(1) European Journal of Risk Regulation, 48-65, 64 (2018).
20. AIR 1937 Mad 38.
21. Andrew C. Wicks, “Albert Schweitzer or Ivan Boesky? Why We Should Reject the Dichotomy between Medicine and Business,” 14(5) Journal of Business Ethics, 339-351, 340 (1995).
22. Judith H. Hibbard and Edward C. Weeks, “Consumerism in Health Care: Prevalence and Predictors,” 25(11) Medical Care, 1019-1032, 1020 (1989).
23. Leo G. Reeder, “The Patient-Client as a Consumer: Some Observations on the Changing Professional-Client Relationship,” 13(4) Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 406-412, 409 (1972).
24. Nathan Isaacs, “The Consumer at Law,” 173 The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 177-187, 180 (134).
25. AIR 1996 SC 550.
26. AIR 2024 SC 2659.