Supreme Court Refuses To Reconsider Judgment Which Brought Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act, Says Reference Was Unnecessary
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
7 Nov 2024 4:09 PM IST
The Supreme Court today (November 7) refused to reconsider the 1995 judgment in Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha, which held that medical professionals come within the ambit of the Consumer Protect Act, 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019).
The Court disposed of a reference made against the decision, saying that it was unnecessary.
On May 14, a two-judge bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, while holding that legal professionals are not covered by the Consumer Protection Act, observed that the 1995 judgment in VP Shantha(which held that doctors are covered under the Consumer Protection Act) required reconsideration.
Today, a 3-judge bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Vishwanathan held that the reference was not necessary. It also questioned what was the necessity of making a reference in respect of another profession since the Court already held that the legal profession is sui generis.
The bench observed in the order as follows :
"The question before the division bench was whether legal professionals could be covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. While considering said question, the Court came to a specific conclusion that the legal profession is sui generis, that is unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other profession. The Court also held that service hired or availed of an advocate is a service under contract of personal service....
While considering the said question, the Court was of the view that in the case of Shantha, where the court was considering question of whether medical practitioners would be covered under the Consumer Protection Act, requires to be revisited. The division bench observed that the question as to whether a profession could be treated as business or trade and therefore, covered within the ambit of the definition under Section 2(1)(o) [service] required a revisit. We find that the issue before the Court was with regards to the legal profession and Court in unequivocal terms came to a conclusion that the legal profession is not covered by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Since the Court came to the aforesaid finding, irrespective of the finding of this Court in Shantha, the reference was not necessary. The question as to whether the other professionals excluding legal profession could be covered by the Consumer Protection Act can be considered in appropriate cases, having a factual foundation... In view of the matter, we dispose of the reference."
What was the 2-judge bench judgment about?
The 2-judge bench 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 practices 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.
"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.
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.
Apart from this, 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.
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
