Supreme Court Refuses To Reconsider Judgment Which Brought Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act, Says Reference Was Unnecessary

The Supreme Court today (November 7) refused to reconsider the 1995 judgment in Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha, which held that medical professionals come within the ambit of the Consumer Protect Act, 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019).The Court disposed of a reference made against the decision, saying that it was unnecessary. On May 14, a two-judge bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, while holding that legal professionals are not covered by the Consumer Protection Act, observed that the 1995 judgment in VP Shantha(which held that doctors are covered under the Consumer Protection Act) required reconsideration.Today, a 3-judge bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Vishwanathan held that the reference was not necessary. It also questioned what was the necessity of making a reference in respect of another profession since the Court already held that the legal profession is sui generis. The bench observed in the order as follows :"The question before the division bench was whether legal professionals could be covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. While considering said question, the Court came to a specific conclusion that the legal profession is sui generis, that is unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other profession. The Court also held that service hired or availed of an advocate is a service under contract of personal service....While considering the said question, the Court was of the view that in the case of Shantha, where the court was considering question of whether medical practitioners would be covered under the Consumer Protection Act, requires to be revisited. The division bench observed that the question as to whether a profession could be treated as business or trade and therefore, covered within the ambit of the definition under Section 2(1)(o) [service] required a revisit. We find that the issue before the Court was with regards to the legal profession and Court in unequivocal terms came to a conclusion that the legal profession is not covered by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Since the Court came to the aforesaid finding, irrespective of the finding of this Court in Shantha, the reference was not necessary. The question as to whether the other professionals excluding legal profession could be covered by the Consumer Protection Act can be considered in appropriate cases, having a factual foundation... In view of the matter, we dispose of the reference."What was the 2-judge bench judgment about?The 2-judge bench opined that the very purpose and objective of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019) was to provide protection to the consumer from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices only. She added that there is nothing to suggest that the legislature ever intended to include a profession or professional within the purview of the Act.“Having said that we have opined that the decision in Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha's (1995) 6 SCC 651 deserves to be revisited and we have requested the CJI to refer it to the larger bench for re-consideration.,” said Justice Trivedi while reading the verdict."We have distinguished profession from business and trade. We have said that a profession would require advance education and training in some branch of learning or science. The nature of work is specialisation and skill, substantial part of which is mental than manual. Having regard to the nature of work of a professional, which requires a high level of education and training and proficiency, and which involves skill and specialised kind of mental work operating in specialised spheres, where actual success depends on various factors beyond one's control, a professional cannot be treated equally or at par with a businessman or a trader or a service provider of products or goods," Justice Trivedi stated."We are therefore of the considered opinion that the very purpose and object of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as re-enacted in 2019 was to provide protection to the consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices. There is nothing to suggest that the legislature ever intended to include professions or professionals within the purview of the Act," Justice Trivedi added.The issue, which is relevant 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.While overruling this decision, the Court held that advocates cannot be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019) for deficiency of services. It reasoned that professionals have to be treated differently from persons carrying out business and trade. It may be recalled that, amongst the arguments put before the Court, it was also submitted that just because the medical profession has been...

Supreme Court Refuses To Reconsider Judgment Which Brought Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act, Says Reference Was Unnecessary

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Supreme Court Refuses To Reconsider Judgment Which Brought Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act, Says Reference Was Unnecessary

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers