A public interest litigation (PIL) filed before the Supreme Court for the removal of doctors from the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act has generated considerable debate. Unfortunately, some have misunderstood its intent. The objective is not to reduce accountability for doctors, but create a grievance redressal system that serves patients better, resolves disputes more quickly, and restores trust between patients and healthcare providers.

Trust is the foundation of the doctor-patient relationship. Patients entrust doctors with their health, well-being, and, often, their lives. When outcomes are unfavourable, most patients seek something basic: an explanation. They want to know what happened and seek honesty, empathy, and reassurance that their concerns are being heard.

The current consumer court system has largely failed to meet these expectations. Hundreds of thousands of cases are pending across the country, often for years because of backlogs, vacancies, and the complexity of medical evidence. This causes distress to patients and doctors alike, while eroding trust, underscoring the need for a more patient-centred system.

For many years, I have advocated for patient safety, including formal training in communication skills and medical ethics. Through educational initiatives, including the book Communicate. Care. Cure., and engagement with regulators and professional bodies, these subjects have been incorporated into healthcare curricula in India. This is important because many disputes arise not from poor treatment but inadequate communication, unrealistic expectations, and lack of empathy. I have also had the privilege of working with organisations such as the Patient for Patient Safety Foundation that emphasise the importance of giving patients and families a meaningful voice in healthcare and grievance redressal.

Mediation first

The need is for strengthened and standardised hospital-based grievance redressal systems with active patient representation. Many hospitals already have patient grievance committees under the National Accreditation Board for Hospitals & Healthcare Providers accreditation.

Mediation should be central to this approach. When patients receive timely explanations, sincere communication, and a fair review of their concerns, many disputes can be resolved without prolonged confrontation.

Importantly, such a system would not take away any patient’s legal rights. If patients are dissatisfied with hospital-level grievance processes or mediation, they should continue to have access to existing legal and regulatory forums. The objective is to provide an effective first level of redressal, not eliminate accountability.

Demotivation

The existing system also has unintended consequences. Fear of litigation encourages defensive medicine, increasing healthcare costs. The resulting atmosphere of mistrust has also contributed to violence against healthcare workers and hospitals.

Finally, India must consider the long-term impact on the profession. Medicine has traditionally attracted some of the brightest minds in the country. If it becomes increasingly associated with litigation, hostility, and personal risk, fewer talented young people may choose it as a career.

The goal should be improved accountability that is transparent, fair, timely, and patient-centred. By strengthening hospital-based grievance systems, promoting mediation, ensuring patient participation, and preserving access to legal remedies, we can create a system that better serves patients while preserving the trust essential to good healthcare.

(The writer is Founder and Patron, Association of Healthcare Providers, India. Views are of the association)

Published on June 15, 2026