Supreme Court Affirms Legal Services Excluded from Consumer Protection Act

Supreme Court Affirms Legal Services Excluded from Consumer Protection Act

The Supreme Court has determined that legal services provided by lawyers will not be covered by the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, individuals cannot lodge claims of service deficiency against advocates.

A bench consisting of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal emphasized that the legal profession is sui generis, meaning it is unique and incomparable to any other profession.

The Bench stated that the relationship between an advocate and a client exhibits distinct characteristics, as the client retains direct control over the advocate.

"Advocates have to respect the client's autonomy and are not entitled to make concessions without express instructions from the client and transgress authority. Considerable amount of direct control is with client of advocate," the court opined.

As a result, the Court concluded that it would be excluded from the scope of the Consumer Protection Act.

"This strengthens our opinion that a contract is of personal service and is excluded from definition of service under CPA," the judgment said.

Significantly, the Court ruled that its 1996 decision in Indian Medical Association v. Shanta regarding medical negligence would require reconsideration.

In this significant ruling, it was established that medical professionals would be held accountable under the Consumer Protection Act, and the Act's definition of 'services' would encompass the healthcare and medical sectors.

"Very purpose of the Act was to protect consumers from unfair trade practices. Nothing to suggest legislature wanted to include professionals. Having said that we have opined IMA v. Shanta decision needs to be revisited," the Court stated.

Therefore, it suggested that the matter be brought before the Chief Justice of India to be referred to a larger bench.

The issue concerning lawyers' services stemmed from a 2007 ruling by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which determined that such services fall within the purview of the Act. The NCDRC observed that the financial agreement between a client and their lawyer is bilateral.

On April 13, 2009, the Supreme Court issued a stay on the NCDRC ruling.

During the hearings, intriguing questions were raised regarding which forum should adjudicate on deficiencies in legal services provided by lawyers.

"We are just inviting the argument; are you not just a mouthpiece of your client? Will you say anything against their interest? Ultimately the client engages you. Lawyer remaining absent, not arguing on ground cited in a civil suit, would it not be deficiency of service," Justice Trivedi asked.

The counsel representing the Bar Council of India (BCI) had emphasized that advocates carry out a sovereign function, emphasizing that pleadings must strictly align with the wishes of the client.

Justice Mithal noted that the rules of the Bar Council of India do not specifically mention the term "negligence" or outline any consequences for such actions.

Justice Trivedi remarked that the medical profession is equally noble as the legal profession.

The Bench also raised questions regarding why lawyers would not fall under the scope of the Act if doctors and medical professionals do.

“If a lawyer does not remain present in the court, and 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 can always decide whether it is professional misconduct or negligence," it had orally remarked.

The Bench also noted that it cannot prevent litigants from initiating false proceedings against lawyers whose services they are dissatisfied with. It reiterated that civil suits can be brought against advocates, irrespective of the process for filing complaints with bar councils.