As a result of these two problems, the medical community in India is quite upset. To start with, the unintended consequences brought forth by the decision in IMA vs. V P Shantha, 1995, which included health care as a service under the Consumer Protection Act 1985.

A second step would be to amend Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita 2023 to make it a crime for a "registered medical professional" to cause the patient's death during an operation they've conducted. The minister had previously said that Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized a doctor's practice, would be appropriately altered in the Bill to "decriminalize" it, therefore this addition shocked and disappointed the profession.

While the intention behind include medical services in CPA was good, the unintended consequences have been catastrophic for contemporary medicine. The lay judiciary in CPA forums, which are not like ordinary courts but more like quasijudicial organizations, was unprepared to handle complicated medical negligence claims via an affidavit-based summary trial, which led to the catastrophe.

The forums served a similar purpose as Kangaroo Courts or, as is more often known to Indians, as the Kajiji Ki Adalat of the Mughal Empire. In large number of cases where the matter reached the Supreme Court, for instance Jacob Mathew and Martin D'Souja, they have analyzed, highlighted and documented the patent distortions in the CPA adjudicated cases.

As a remedy for the harm that has been done, the Supreme Court has, in its rulings in the aforementioned instances, established procedures for the adjudication of cases involving medical negligence and has proposed several improvements to tort law.

The legislative purpose inferred by the Court on statutory interpretation of the 1985 legislation of CPA was the foundation for reading-in health service in CPA by IMA vs. VP Shantha, which aimed to clarify the uncertainty in the provision defining services in the Act. Despite the inclusionary provision of the Act including almost a dozen services, medical treatment was omitted. After reviewing the Act's structure and scope as well as the legislative process, the court concluded that health services were meant to be included in the Act under the 'including but not limited to' language that came before the designated services.

From 1995 to 2023, this was the norm. Legislation enacted in 2023 supersedes that of 1985. The 1985 CPA and the 2019 CPA were brought before the Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court for statutory interpretation in the case of Bar Of Indian Lawyers Through Its... versus D.K. Gandhi Ps National Institute Of... on 24 April 2019.

The Appeals before the SC emanated from the impugned order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had held that if there was any deficiency in service rendered by the Advocates/Lawyers, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, would be maintainable. The question of law before the SC was whether a complaint alleging "deficiency in service" against Advocates practising Legal Profession, would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as re-enacted in 2019?