Judgment Bringing Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act Requires Reconsideration : Supreme Court

A Bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal held so while deciding an appeal that raised the issue of whether advocates can be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act for deficiency in services. The Division bench had heard the matter at length before reserving its judgment on February 26.

While pronouncing the verdict, Justice Trivedi opined that the very purpose and objective of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019) was to provide protection to the consumer from unfair trade practices and unethical business practice only.

She added that there is nothing to suggest that the legislature ever intended to include a profession or professional within the purview of the Act.

“Having said that we have opined that the decision in Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha's (1995) 6 SCC 651 deserves to be revisited and we have requested the CJI to refer it to the larger bench for re-consideration.,” said Justice Trivedi while reading the verdict.

"We have distinguished profession from business and trade. We have said that a profession would require advance education and training in some branch of learning or science. The nature of work is specialisation and skill, substantial part of which is mental than manual. Having regard to the nature of work of a professional, which requires a high level of education and training and proficiency, and which involves skill and specialised kind of mental work operating in specialised spheres, where actual success depends on various factors beyond one's control, a professional cannot be treated equally or at par with a businessman or a trader or a service provider of products or goods," Justice Trivedi stated.

"We are therefore of the considered opinion that the very purpose and object of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as re-enacted in 2019 was to provide protection to the consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices. There is nothing to suggest that the legislature ever intended to include professions or professionals within the purview of the Act," Justice Trivedi added.

The issue, which is relevant for members of the Bar, emerged from a judgment delivered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2007. The Commission had ruled that the services rendered by lawyers are covered under Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act.

While overruling this decision, the Court held that advocates cannot be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019) for deficiency of services. It reasoned that professionals have to be treated differently from persons carrying out business and trade.

It may be recalled that, amongst the arguments put before the Court, it was also submitted that just because the medical profession has been included under the Act through VP Shantha's case, by the same logic, the legal profession cannot be included. In view of this, it was asserted that Shanta's case should be reconsidered, and doctors are being subjected to a lot of harassment.

Apart from this, the certain other discrepancies were highlighted in the aforementioned case. Based on this, the court was requested to consider placing it before a three-judge bench for an overview.

For a detailed story on the order and the case background click here.

Counsels for the Appellants: Senior Advocate Narender Hooda and Advocate Jasbir Malik for Bar of Indian Lawyers, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta for Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, Senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar for the Bar Council of India, senior advocate Manoj Swarup, for Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Senior advocate Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan for Bengaluru Bar Association

The reports on the matter can be read here: Lawyers Appearing For Client In Courts Aren't 'Service Providers' As Per Consumer Protection Act, Says Amicus; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

'Lawyers Function In An Environment Beyond Their Control' : SCAORA Urges Supreme Court To Not Apply Consumer Protection Act To Advocates

Advocates Can't Be Brought Under Consumer Protection Act Just Because Doctors Are, Both Professions Different: Argument Before Supreme Court

Lawyer Assisting A Sovereign Function, Can't Be Brought Under Consumer Protection Act : Argument Before Supreme Court

Can Advocate Be Held Liable Under Consumer Protection Act? Supreme Court Starts Hearing

Case Title: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SIGH MALIK vs. D.K.GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES., Diary No.- 27751 - 2007

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 372

Click here to read the judgment