In a landmark judgment on May 14, the Supreme Court ruled that advocates are not liable under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) of 1986 for any alleged deficiencies in their services. This decision distinguishes legal professionals from those in ordinary business or trade, effectively overturning a 2007 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) decision that previously included legal services under the Act.
The bench, comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, reasoned that the nature of professional services, which involve advanced education, specialized skills, and significant mental effort, differs fundamentally from typical business activities. They highlighted the unique advocate-client relationship, noting that clients have considerable control over their advocates, requiring explicit instructions for decisions, which sets the legal profession apart from others and excludes it from the CPA's standard service definitions.
The Court emphasized that unlike business activities, the success of professionals such as advocates is influenced by factors beyond their control, justifying different legal treatment under consumer protection laws.
Additionally, the Court suggested reconsidering the Indian Medical Association v. VP Shanta judgment, which held medical professionals liable under the CPA. This recommendation indicates a potential shift in how professional liability is viewed.
The judgment also underscored the unique characteristics of the legal profession, describing it as sui generis—of its own kind. It argued that the advocate-client relationship, governed predominantly by personal service contracts, should be exempt from the CPA's definitions of 'service.'
Previously, the NCDRC had ruled that while lawyers might not guarantee a favorable outcome, deficiencies in their promised services could still lead to proceedings under the CPA. This ruling was stayed by the Supreme Court in 2009, leading to the recent judgment that sets a significant precedent for the treatment of professional services under consumer law.
The Supreme Court had reserved judgment on February 29, 2024, regarding whether lawyers should be covered under the CPA, revisiting the term 'services' as defined in the CPA. This appeal challenged the 2007 NCDRC judgment, which had been stayed by the Supreme Court in 2009.
Case Title: Bar Of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute Of Communicable Diseases & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No(s). 2646/2009
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
