Mathur, Vineesh2019-09-252019-09-252012-03-212011-100975-5691http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/184264"The Consumer Protection Act (2) was extended to services with the express purpose of defining the nature of services, validating the contracts under which such services were rendered and expediting the processes of claims which may arise when there is a perceived deficiency in the rendering of a service. The legal profession has devoted considerable time and effort to bringing medical services under this act. It has been successful in establishing the norm that paid medical care is a service rendered under a paid contract. Such care has thus been brought under the jurisdiction of consumer courts. The medical profession, on the other hand, has been extremely vocal in claiming that though the intention of the courts is laudable, ie to introduce accountability, the net effect of the act has been to sow the seeds of distrust between patients and their representatives and doctors at large. My contention has always been that though a service has been rendered, the definition of the service and the contract under which it is rendered has been subjective, unquantifiable, and open to misinterpretation. To be fair, the courts have always emphasised that the issue of failure of treatment is not to be confused with the delivery of inadequate service or criminal negligence (3). In practice, however, every case that has landed up in consumer or other courts has the background of failure of treatment."(pg 243)engWith permission of the license/copyright holdercare providersmedical ethicsproviding agenciesMethods of ethicsBioethicsSocial ethicsSexual orientation/genderMedical ethicsHealth ethicsArticle