Medical services across Nepal, with the exception of emergency care, have come to a halt following a nationwide strike by doctors beginning Monday. The protest, organized by the Nepal Medical Association (NMA), was triggered by recent court rulings that found doctors liable for malpractice and ordered substantial compensation to patients.

The doctors’ strike stems from three recent decisions issued by the Consumer Court. These rulings held hospitals and physicians responsible for alleged medical negligence and required them to pay damages. In a notable development, the court ordered four doctors involved in treatment at Om Hospital, Grande City Clinic, and Himal Hospital to compensate plaintiffs alongside the respective medical institutions.

According to court official Shobhakar Kharel, 15 consumer-related cases have been filed so far, six of which are linked to hospitals and doctors. Of those six, rulings were issued in three cases by judicial panels led by Judges Gehendra Raj Regmi, Ram Prasad Sharma, and Ananda Raj Pokhrel.

The NMA has strongly opposed the decisions, arguing that they encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Nepal Medical Council, the country’s regulatory body for medical practice. In a public statement, the association claimed the verdicts have demoralized medical professionals and fostered a sense of insecurity within the healthcare sector.

NMA General Secretary Dr. Sanjeev Tiwari emphasized that the association’s primary concern is not with the court's authority, but with its broad approach. He noted that the Consumer Court traditionally handled cases related to market fraud and price hikes, and asserted that patient dissatisfaction with treatment outcomes should be handled by the Nepal Medical Council, not through consumer litigation.

Tiwari warned that equating medical procedures with other consumer services could have dangerous consequences. “Medical services are inherently different. No doctor ever intends to harm a patient. Every practitioner applies their full expertise to aid recovery, but treatment methods may not yield the same results for everyone,” he said. “If medical outcomes are seen as deliberate failings, doctors will be discouraged from practicing altogether.” He added that the protest would continue until the government takes appropriate action.

In response, court official Kharel clarified that the Consumer Court's rulings are not final and can be challenged in higher courts. He said doctors and hospitals retain the right to appeal and that pursuing legal recourse would be more appropriate than initiating mass protests.

Nepal’s Consumer Protection Act of 2018 allows consumers to seek compensation if harmed by goods or services. While medical services were not initially considered under its purview, recent interpretations of the law have broadened its scope, leading to an increase in cases involving healthcare providers.

Details of the Cases and Rulings

Case 1

Ruling Date: June 12

The Consumer Court ruled that Om Hospital and its two doctors must collectively pay Rs 5.68 million in damages. The case was filed by lawyer Basanta Gautam, whose 98-year-old father, Hariprasad Gautam, died during treatment. The hospital was ordered to pay Rs 5.07 million, while each doctor was held responsible for Rs 305,500.

Case 2

Ruling Date: June 19

Barsha Bhandari, a resident of Kathmandu originally from Dharan, filed a lawsuit against Grande City Hospital and plastic surgeon Dr. Sanjeev Tripathi. She alleged negligence during a thigh reshaping surgery, which required two operations due to complications. The court awarded her Rs 5.71 million in damages, assigning 70% of the compensation (Rs 4 million) to the doctor and the remaining 30% (Rs 1.71 million) to the hospital.

Case 3

Ruling Date: June 26

Ganga Gautam filed a case after her 28-month-old daughter died during treatment at Himal Hospital. Initially filed at the Kathmandu District Court, the case was referred to the Consumer Court, which ultimately ruled in her favor. The court ordered a compensation payment of Rs 14.54 million with 70% to be paid by the hospital and 30% by the physician.

These landmark rulings mark a shift in Nepal's legal treatment of medical malpractice, sparking intense debate over professional accountability, patient rights, and the role of consumer courts in regulating healthcare.