The Hon’ble Supreme Court while hearing a set of appeals emanating from the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, held that Advocates cannot be held liable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019, for “deficiency in service”.
The National Commission in a Revision Application had overturned the order of the State Commission wherein it had held that the services of lawyers/advocates did not fall within the ambit of “service” defined under section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The National Commission has inter alia held that if there was any deficiency in service rendered by the Advocates, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019 would be maintainable.
The issue that the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered in deciding the case was whether a “Service” hired or availed of an Advocate would fall within the definition of “Service” contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019, so as to bring him within the purview of the Act. While deciding the matter the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded as follows:
The very purpose and object of the Consumer Protection Act 1986/2019 was to provide protection to the consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices, and the Legislature never intended to include either the Professions or the services rendered by the Professionals within the purview of the said Act.
The Legal Profession is sui generis i.e. unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other Profession.
A service hired or availed of an Advocate is a service under “a contract of personal service,” and therefore would fall within the exclusionary part of the definition of “Service” contained in Section 2 (42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
A complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practicing Legal Profession would not be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Hon’ble Court while holding so, also opined that neither “Profession” could be treated as “business” or “trade” nor the services provided by the “Professionals” could be treated at par with the services provided by the Businessmen or the Traders, so as to bring them within the purview of the Act. Hence the Hon’ble Court relying upon Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules stated that the decision of the three-judge bench, in case of Indian Medical Association vs. V.P Shantha [1995 SCC (6) 651] deserves to be revisited and considered by a larger bench and therefore referred the matter to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for his consideration.
Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases
[2024] 162 taxmann.com 461 (SC)
Comments