Advocates Can't Be Brought Under Consumer Protection Act Just Because Doctors Are, Both Professions Different: Argument Before Supreme Court

In a matter where the Supreme Court is hearing whether services rendered by the lawyer would come within the Consumer Protection Act of 1986., arguments were advanced today (on 21 February) where an attempt to distinguish the legal profession from that of the medical profession was made. The issue, crucial 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. The said provision defines Service. It was held that a lawyer may not be responsible for the favorable outcome of a case as the result/outcome does not depend on only the lawyer's work. However, if there was a deficiency in rendering services promised, for which he receives consideration in the form of a fee, then the lawyers can proceed under the Consumer Protection Act. The matter is placed before Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal. The details of the previous gearing can be read here. During today's hearing, Senior Advocate Narender Hooda, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, completed his submissions. At the outset, Hooda cited the Supreme Court judgment in Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha's (1995) 6 SCC 651, which held that healthcare services are covered under the Act. Taking a cue from the observations in this aforesaid decision, Hooda tried convincing the Bench that the medical profession is different. Hooda went on to submit that though the client pays fees to the lawyer, the former cannot be in a position where he says, “I pay you so I will call the tune”. Hooda reiterated that a lawyer cannot be seen as a mouthpiece for her client. Placing his reliance on the Bar Council Rules, Hooda averred that lawyers also have a duty towards their colleague (appearing for the other side) and duty to be fair. At this stage, Justice Trivedi interjected and asked the Counsel: “Can you say something adverse to the interest of your client, even if you believe that is not right? In a way you are a mouthpiece to you client.” Hooda fervently opposed this view and submitted, “My duty is to assist the Court in performing the sovereign function. That is the first duty. In that duty I will espouse the cause of my client within the permissible four corners of law. If there is some document which is against the interest of my client and I have it in my brief, I cannot withhold it, in law, from the Court. If there is a judgment against me directly, I cannot withhold that judgment.” Further, elucidating this, Hooda also argued that while a patient can ask a doctor not to prescribe any particular medicine similarly, a client cannot ask a lawyer to not cite any specific judgment. Highlighting the distinction, Hooda averred: “There the relationship is this, if the patient says that you are prescribing me this medicine, I will not take it. My client cannot say that don't cite this judgment and cite only this judgment. This is how, my lords, my profession is completely different and this is how public policy element is involved in legal profession.” Unlike doctors, if a lawyer is engaged by a client, then the former has no discretion to exit without any reasonable cause being given., the Senior Council submitted. Similarly, a client cannot change a lawyer unless, as per the Bar Council Rules, there is a no-objection certificate of the lawyer. Continuing with his arguments, Hooda also placed his reliance on the Delhi High Court Judgment, wherein it was held "professional activity" of lawyers does not fall within the category of "commercial establishment" or "business activity," and the firm of lawyers is not a "commercial establishment." It may be noted that consequently this position was affirmed by the Supreme Court as well. At this stage, Justice Trivedi inquired: Doctors are put in business category? Hooda replied: All clinics and all hospitals Moving on, Hooda also pointed out that an institution run by a physician, such as a nursing home, can advertise without any bar, unlike Advocates (who are prohibited from soliciting their work). “An individual doctor in a one- room clinic is a nursing home…So, my lords, for this reason also doctors cannot claim parity with the lawyers.,” the counsel submitted. By the end of the arguments, Hooda stressed that a client cannot be given the handle to judge the lawyer and sue him/ her. Elaborating, the Counsel said that if this is permitted then it will allow a collateral challenge to the binding decisions. It will lead to re-trial., the counsel said. He also highlighted that under the new 2019 Consumer Protection Act, the consumer complaint can be filed where the complainant resides. Illustrating this situation, Hooda submitted: “Some Client from Tamil Nadu comes to me and engages me here. I do a case. He can ...

Advocates Can't Be Brought Under Consumer Protection Act Just Because Doctors Are, Both Professions Different: Argument Before Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

Advocates Can't Be Brought Under Consumer Protection Act Just Because Doctors Are, Both Professions Different: Argument Before Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers