Mixed method study examines doctors' understanding of health rights and laws, indicating knowledge gaps and implications for practice.
Introduction: The 2015 Constitution of Nepal guarantees health as fundamental right, while the Consumer Protection Act 2018 provides legal remedies for medical negligence. There has been surge in consumer court decisions awarding substantial compensation creating fear among doctors. Hence, the study was aimed to find out the knowledge and perspectives on constitutional rights to health and Consumer Protection Act among doctors. Methods: This mixed method cross-sectional study was conducted at a 150-bed community hospital from November 2025 to January 2026 following Institutional Review Committee approval. Using census sampling, 66 doctors completed semi-structured questionnaire assessing demographics, knowledge of constitutional health rights and Consumer Protection Act 2018, and their perspectives using a five-point Likert scale. Focused group discussion with 11 doctors explored the understanding, implications and challenges, with data analyzed through descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results: All respondents identified constitutional rights to health with high awareness of informed consent 54(91.53%) and health information 53(89.83%). Though 55(83.33%) were aware that Consumer Protection Act 2018 covers healthcare services, only 20(30.30%) respondents correctly identified Consumer Courts as complaint authority. While 47 (71.21%) respondents reported fear of complaints leading to defensive medical practices, 51(77.27%) agreed that knowledge and awareness on constitutional health rights and consumer protection laws guide clinical decisions. However, doctors lack legal awareness as financial barriers, fear and ethical conflicts highlight the need for systemic reform. Conclusions: The study found reasonable awareness of constitutional health rights among doctors, however; the knowledge gaps was existent regarding Consumer Protection Act provisions, jurisdictional authorities and legal liabilities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Baniya et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: