ThiruvananThapuram: Consumer Dispute State Kerala The Redressal Commission has ruled an unfounded argument that complaints about medical negligence cannot be maintained under the provisions of the consumer protection law, 2019.
Missing the revised petition submitted against the Order of the Kannur Regency Consumer Protection Forum in the case of suspicion of negligence Medical, commission, chaired by Justice K Surendra Mohan, concluded that medical services cannot claim the impunity of the provisions of the consumer protection law only because the action does not specifically call the medical service sector per se.
Presenting cases before the commission, advisors a group of hospitals in Kannur Regency argues that part 2 (42) of consumer protection laws, 2019, do not mention health services as a service that is included in the definition.
It is shown that some services, including banking, financing, insurance, transportation processing, etc., specifically mentioned.
But health services or medical negligence are ‘non-striking’ in this section.
Therefore, it is said that the legislature consciously excludes medical services from PurView actions.
Furthermore, it argues that the design of the 2019 Law Bill does contain specific mention of the health sector, but the same thing is issued by parliament, choose a committee.
Such deliberate exceptions, further, prove the intention of parliament to protect the health sector completely from PurView of these actions.
However, citing Section 2 (42) of the Law and Section 2019 (1) of the 1986 Law, the Commission decided that the two provisions were identical.
In the 1986 round, although the health sector was not specifically mentioned in the provisions, the APEX court in his decision in V P Shantha (Supra) interpreted the meaningful allowance and entering the health sector as well.
“Because there were no conscious changes in the provisions that had been brought by the parliament while enacting the 2019 Law, we did not find strength in the conflict of advice studied that the health sector had been deliberately excluded by the parliament while enacting the law,” The Commission said.
Although during deliberation that occurred before the enactment of the 2019 law, the question of whether the inclusion of certain health sectors is needed in the provision of law may appear to be considered, because they have thought it is not necessary to make it specific inclusion, laws such as standing does not contain specific entered from the health sector such as In the case of the 1986 Law, the order commission said.
“As much as the provisions of the previous actions and new actions exist in Pari Materia with each other, we found no reason to conclude that Parliament had deliberately excluded the health sector of PurView …,” clarified orders.