Supreme Court exempts lawyers from liability under Consumer Protection Act. Doctors next?

New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that advocates cannot be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for deficiency in service. The court ruled that a complaint to this effect against an advocate was not maintainable before a consumer forum.

A bench comprising Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal was hearing an appeal against a 2007 ruling by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), and overturned the commission’s ruling.

The court also indicated that its 1996 decision that held medical professionals accountable under the Consumer Protection Act may need to be revisited. It suggested that the definition of ‘services’ under the Act, which includes the medical sector, be reexamined. The issue will be referred to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud to be placed before a larger bench for further consideration.

Also read: Consumer courts to get a digital flavour

The NCDRC had held that services provided by lawyers fell under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While acknowledging that a lawyer may not be responsible for the outcome of a case, as it depends on various factors, the commission said lawyers could be held accountable under the Consumer Protection Act if there were deficiencies in their service and a fee was paid.

Ruling challenged in Supreme Court

The Bar of Indian Lawyers, represented by its president, challenged the ruling in the Supreme Court. In its judgement, the court said legal representation for a fee couldn’t be classified as a service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It noted that lawyers provided a unique service, and that there was no indication that the legislature intended to include professionals under the Act.

Also read: Dedicated portal to be launched for consumer complaints on services

The court said the relationship between a client and their lawyer is akin to a contract of personal service. Consequently, lawyers cannot be dragged to consumer courts over alleged deficiencies in service. However, they can still be sued in ordinary courts for negligence and other malpractice.

SC ruled differently on doctors in 1996

In the case of Indian Medical Association vs V P Shantha in 1996, the Supreme Court had held that the definition of 'services' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 included the medical and healthcare sectors, provided a fee was paid. It ruled that patients, by paying for medical services, we engaging in a consumer transaction and expected a certain standard of care.

This judgement arose from a writ petition filed amid increasing legal disputes regarding medical negligence, which sparked questions about whether medical services were covered by the Consumer Protection Act. The ambiguity stemmed from debates about the classification of medical services as professional or occupational, and whether they could be considered to be within the scope of consumer-protection legislation.

Alpana Srivastava, partner at law firm Desai & Diwanji, said, "The Supreme Court has interpreted the Consumer Protection Act as primarily safeguarding consumers against unfair trade practices and unethical business conduct. However, it's important to recognise that medical professionals routinely encounter situations where their expertise necessitates exceeding a patient's influence on treatment decisions.

"Excluding medical professionals from the CPA's definition of ‘service’ would restrict aggrieved patients from pursuing recourse through quasi-judicial bodies such as the Medical Council of India and state medical councils. While these bodies address professional misconduct, their focus limits patients' ability to seek specific compensation and restricts the range of remedies available. Additionally, the CPA's concept of "deficiency in service" extends beyond individual practitioners to encompass the institutions they are affiliated with."

Also read: Liquor ads passed off as music CDs? Not for much longer