A Federal High Court in Abuja has affirmed the powers of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to investigate complaints of medical negligence by patients.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Emeka Nwite on April 15 in a suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/1019/2021) filed by Life Bridge Medical Diagnostic Centre Ltd., which challenged the FCCPC’s authority to investigate complaints relating to healthcare services provided to consumers.
In the suit, the plaintiff sought declarations that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to investigate complaints bordering on alleged medical negligence, arguing that the FCCPC could not act without first concluding a concurrent jurisdiction arrangement with the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN).
According to the Director of Corporate Affairs at the FCCPC, Ondaje Ijagwu, Justice Nwite rejected the claims in their entirety.
He held that the plaintiff, being a commercial entity providing diagnostic services for reward, falls within the definition of an undertaking under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018 (FCCPA), and that healthcare services are subject to consumer protection oversight under the Act.
The court also held that where a complaint relates to consumer satisfaction, such matters may fall within the FCCPC’s consumer protection mandate, even where the sector is also professionally regulated.
It further distinguished between professional regulation and discipline of medical practitioners, which remains within the remit of relevant professional bodies, and consumer protection oversight concerning the quality, fairness, standards, and treatment received by consumers of healthcare services, which falls within the FCCPC’s mandate.
Justice Nwite added that Section 105 of the FCCPA, which provides for coordination among regulators, does not constitute a condition precedent to the Commission’s exercise of jurisdiction.
He held that the absence of a formal agreement with another regulator does not extinguish or suspend powers expressly conferred on the FCCPC by law.
The court equally ruled that ethical obligations such as patient confidentiality do not override lawful statutory investigative powers exercised in the public interest and in accordance with due process.
Reacting to the judgment, the Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the FCCPC, Mr. Tunji Bello, described the ruling as a symbolic affirmation that consumers are entitled to protection and lawful redress in all sectors where services are provided for value, including healthcare.
Bello stated that the decision confirms that sector-specific professional regulation and consumer protection oversight are distinct statutory functions that can operate side by side in the public interest.
He noted that the Commission’s role is not to replace professional bodies or sector regulators, but to ensure that consumers who pay for services are treated fairly and receive standards consistent with the law.
Bello added that the judgment affirms that no commercial service sector is beyond lawful consumer protection accountability.
He reiterated the FCCPC’s commitment to constructive engagement with healthcare providers, professional bodies, regulators, and other stakeholders to promote quality service delivery, accountability, and stronger consumer confidence.
