Supreme Court Rules Legal Services Exempt from Consumer Protection Act
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that legal services rendered by lawyers will not be under the Consumer Protection Act and hence the claim of deficiency of service against advocates is not admissible [Bar of Indian Lawyers v. DK Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and anr].
A Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal stated that legal profession is sui generis (unique) and cannot be likened to any other profession.
The client-advocate tie illustrates the distinctive characteristics since the client has the complete authority over the advocate, the Bench stated.
“The Court has highlighted that, advocates have to respect the autonomy of clients and they are not allowed to make concessions without the explicit instructions from the clients and go beyond the limits of authority. The majority of direct control is with the clients and not the advocates,” wrote the Court.
Thus, it would be the outcast from the sphere of the Consumer Protection Act, the Court decided/
This, in practical terms, supports the claim that contract is personal and is not covered by the definition of service under the CPA.
Of course, the Court decided that it would have to change its 1996 ruling in the Indian Medical Association v. Shanta on medical negligence.
This groundbreaking verdict had once ruled that the medical professionals would be liable under the Consumer Protection Act and that the term ‘services’ under the Act would also include healthcare and medical sector.
The main objective of the Act was to protect consumers from unfair trade practices. This was not a part of the legislature’s aim to include professionals. In other words, the Court has said that the IMA vs Shanta decision needs to be re-examined.
Therefore, the issue of the same was to be referred to the Chief Justice of India and it would be given a bigger bench for further examination.
Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal are the two former judges of India’s Supreme Court of Justice
The problem with lawyers’ services was caused by a 2007 verdict of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that said that such services are covered by the Act’s rules and at the same time, the money contract between a client and their lawyer is a two sided one.
The highest court put in effect the NCDRC decision on April 13, 2009 after stopping it.
The Bar of Indian Lawyers, who were barristers, were represented by Senior Advocate Narender Hooda and Advocate Jasbir Malik. The Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate V Giri was representing in the case.
The hearings were characterized by some curious queries on which forum has to be the one to decide about the shortcomings in the legal services provided by lawyers.
We are just prompting the argument, are you not just a tool of your client, in other words, are you not just a mouthpiece of your client?Do you plan to utter something against their interest?The client finally gets you. Lawyer not being there, not delivering arguments on the dispute raised in the civil suit why not, it would be a service deficiency,” Justice Trivedi had asked.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) counsel had stated that advocates perform a sovereign function, and the pleadings have to be strictly guided by what the client wants.
Justice Mithal had noted that the BCI rules do not even have the words negligence or anything about the consequences for the same.
The medical field is considered by Justice Trivedi as noble as the law.
The Court had also questioned the reason if the lawyers would not be included in the Act if doctors and medical professionals are.
“If a lawyer is not there in the court, and the ex-parte decree is passed against his client, the lawyer does not even tell his client why the case was dismissed! Who will be responsible for this? For this kind of negligence, the court does not come in the picture at all. . . A court could always decide whether the absent lawyer was professional misconduct or negligence,” it had orally
It has also pointed out that it cannot prohibit the parties from bringing false cases against lawyers who they were not satisfied with while using their services.
It had highlighted that civil lawsuits can be filed against lawyers no matter what be the method of lodging the complaints with bar councils.
