Consumer-type "treatment" applicable to the Consumer Protection Law; online evasion of "dual recording" should be held responsible

Our reporter Ding Ying

In for-profit medical institutions that set their own prices for medical services, treating diseases within the scope of non-mandatory contractual medical services falls under the scope of the Consumer Rights Protection Law; when financial institutions promote wealth management products to elderly consumers online, they should bear relevant responsibilities for dual-recording supervision. Recently, the China Consumers Association (hereinafter referred to as “CCA”) released 10 typical judicial cases of nationwide consumer rights protection in 2025, among which two cases involving medical disputes and financial consumption have attracted widespread attention.

In the case of Sun Moumou v. Beijing Dawang Road Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Hospital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dawang Road Hospital”) over a medical service contract dispute, Sun Moumou consulted Dawang Road Hospital online about skin rashes. When asked about the hospital’s qualifications, he was told it was a “nationally recognized top-tier hospital,” so he went for treatment and was diagnosed with papules and prostatitis, paying a total of 61,963 yuan for three visits. Later, the administrative authorities determined that the hospital staff gave false answers regarding the hospital’s medical practice qualifications and ordered the hospital to correct this and imposed administrative penalties. Sun Moumou claimed that the hospital’s false statements, inducement to consumption, and excessive medical treatment constituted consumer fraud, requesting a refund and punitive damages.

The first-instance court ordered Dawang Road Hospital to refund 50,000 yuan of medical service fees. The second-instance court consulted medical experts, confirming that Sun Moumou’s condition was a common illness rather than a critical emergency, and that all expenses were purely out-of-pocket. As a profit-making medical institution, the hospital’s medical costs are fully market-regulated. The court recognized that the medical services in this case were consumer-type medical activities and applicable under the Consumer Rights Protection Law. The hospital engaged in false advertising and excessive treatment during Sun Moumou’s consultation and treatment, constituting fraud, and should bear punitive damages. The second-instance court ordered the hospital to refund 50,000 yuan and pay 185,889 yuan in damages, three times the total medical expenses.

In the case of the China Consumers Association’s “Rights Protection Guide,” it is pointed out that non-medical aesthetic medical disputes may also be subject to the Consumer Rights Protection Law depending on specific circumstances. If a medical institution is profit-oriented, the medical services are not within the scope of mandatory contractual medical services, and prices are market-driven, with full out-of-pocket costs and no basic medical insurance or government procurement prices used, and the services are for daily life consumption needs, then they can be included within the scope of the law.

CCA reminds consumers that before receiving medical services, they should carefully verify the qualifications of medical institutions and personnel, avoiding decisions based solely on online promotions; during treatment, request clear diagnosis basis and itemized costs, be cautious of frequent tests and repeated treatments, and promptly keep medical records, examination reports, billing receipts, and communication records. CCA also reminds medical institutions to adhere to honesty and integrity principles and to practice lawfully when providing medical services.

In the case of Wang Moumou v. Industrial Bank Co., Ltd. Beijing Dongwai Branch over a financial entrusted wealth management contract dispute, Wang Moumou (over 65 years old) purchased three funds totaling 1.06 million yuan under the recommendation of a client manager at Industrial Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Industrial Bank”). When redeeming, he suffered a loss of 219,586.34 yuan. Wang Moumou claimed that his purchase and risk assessment were handled by the client manager on his behalf, and that the “dual-recording” (audio and video recording) was not conducted during the process. Industrial Bank argued that the purchase was entirely self-operated online by Wang Moumou, and online sales are not subject to the dual-recording supervision regulations.

The court found that Industrial Bank had flaws in fulfilling its suitability obligations to elderly clients and was clearly attempting to evade dual-recording supervision through “offline marketing and online transaction completion,” which significantly exceeded the scope of consumer autonomous purchasing. The first-instance court ordered Industrial Bank to bear 30% of the investment loss, paying 63,031.05 yuan. The second-instance court upheld the original judgment.

CCA’s “Rights Protection Guide” for this case reminds elderly consumers to ask about risks, duration, and costs before purchasing wealth management products, understand product information, operate independently during purchase, record audio and video, and retain evidence. It also urges financial institutions to consider factors such as age, financial experience, and cognitive ability when selling products to elderly consumers, fulfilling a more targeted and cautious suitability obligation different from that for ordinary investors. Additionally, CCA recommends that regulators and financial institutions refine standards for fulfilling suitability obligations for elderly consumers and establish specialized risk assessment and product matching mechanisms for this group.