Do lawyers come under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act? The 2009 case concerning this question came up for hearing yesterday in Supreme Court..A Bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta heard the matter, which is a series of appeals by both parties involved in the original case. The case is an appeal against the decision of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (National Commission) which had held that services rendered by lawyers are covered under the Consumer Protection Act..By way of background, one DK Gandhi had engaged the legal services of M Mathias. He later alleged negligence on the part of Mathias and filed a consumer complaint against him at the district consumer forum. The forum directed the lawyer to pay Gandhi Rs. 3,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment..Mathias challenged this order in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which overruled the district forum’s order by saying that a complaint against a lawyer was not maintainable before the consumer forum, as the service rendered by lawyers did not come under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act..In Gandhi’s appeal against this order at the National Commission, it was held that the reasoning given by the State Commission was erroneous. The National Commission stated that Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, which defines “service”, was very wide and would cover all services except rendering of services free of charge or a contract of personal service. Therefore, it could safely be said that lawyers were covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986..This verdict was challenged by Bar of Indian Lawyers, Bar Council of India, and the Delhi High Court Bar Association among others..On April 13, 2009 the Supreme Court had stayed the decision of the National Commission..The petition quotes the State Commission’s verdict extensively and takes up a key issue with the judgment of the National Commission..“In fact, equation of lawyers with doctors, etc. is absolutely wrong. In practice, it is for the judge to pass an order unless there is adverse order, a person has no cause of action, but the relation between doctor and patient is one to one. In such a relationship, nature of relationship between doctor and client is no way comparable to the relationship of doctor and patient.”.The petitioner also contends that the service rendered by a lawyer would not come within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act as the client executes the power of attorney, authorising the counsel to act on his behalf and there is no term of contract for the liability of the advocate in case he fails to do any such act..Interestingly, one of the grounds is also the encroachment of the authority of the Bar Council of India to deal with complaints against Advocates, as it is a statutory body vested with the power and jurisdiction to proceed against its own..Advocate Jasbir Singh Malik appeared for the Bar of Indian Lawyers yesterday. The Court has granted leave in the matter which will now be listed for final hearing..In view of the aforesaid, the question does arise: has the time come for the legal fraternity to be held to a higher standard of accountability?.The Law Commission of India recently proposed changes to the Advocates Act in this very regard. The insertion of a new Section 45A potentially empowers clients to claim compensation from lawyers who are found to be engaging in “misconduct” or taking part in strikes..Even as lawyers from across the country protest these proposed amendments, the next few weeks promise to be critical in the endeavour to regulate the legal profession.
Do lawyers come under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act? The 2009 case concerning this question came up for hearing yesterday in Supreme Court..A Bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta heard the matter, which is a series of appeals by both parties involved in the original case. The case is an appeal against the decision of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (National Commission) which had held that services rendered by lawyers are covered under the Consumer Protection Act..By way of background, one DK Gandhi had engaged the legal services of M Mathias. He later alleged negligence on the part of Mathias and filed a consumer complaint against him at the district consumer forum. The forum directed the lawyer to pay Gandhi Rs. 3,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment..Mathias challenged this order in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which overruled the district forum’s order by saying that a complaint against a lawyer was not maintainable before the consumer forum, as the service rendered by lawyers did not come under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act..In Gandhi’s appeal against this order at the National Commission, it was held that the reasoning given by the State Commission was erroneous. The National Commission stated that Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, which defines “service”, was very wide and would cover all services except rendering of services free of charge or a contract of personal service. Therefore, it could safely be said that lawyers were covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986..This verdict was challenged by Bar of Indian Lawyers, Bar Council of India, and the Delhi High Court Bar Association among others..On April 13, 2009 the Supreme Court had stayed the decision of the National Commission..The petition quotes the State Commission’s verdict extensively and takes up a key issue with the judgment of the National Commission..“In fact, equation of lawyers with doctors, etc. is absolutely wrong. In practice, it is for the judge to pass an order unless there is adverse order, a person has no cause of action, but the relation between doctor and patient is one to one. In such a relationship, nature of relationship between doctor and client is no way comparable to the relationship of doctor and patient.”.The petitioner also contends that the service rendered by a lawyer would not come within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act as the client executes the power of attorney, authorising the counsel to act on his behalf and there is no term of contract for the liability of the advocate in case he fails to do any such act..Interestingly, one of the grounds is also the encroachment of the authority of the Bar Council of India to deal with complaints against Advocates, as it is a statutory body vested with the power and jurisdiction to proceed against its own..Advocate Jasbir Singh Malik appeared for the Bar of Indian Lawyers yesterday. The Court has granted leave in the matter which will now be listed for final hearing..In view of the aforesaid, the question does arise: has the time come for the legal fraternity to be held to a higher standard of accountability?.The Law Commission of India recently proposed changes to the Advocates Act in this very regard. The insertion of a new Section 45A potentially empowers clients to claim compensation from lawyers who are found to be engaging in “misconduct” or taking part in strikes..Even as lawyers from across the country protest these proposed amendments, the next few weeks promise to be critical in the endeavour to regulate the legal profession.
