ABSTRACT
This research paper reviews the recent landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of India which clarified the application of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 to legal professionals, specifically lawyers. The Consumer Protection Act was originally enacted to address consumer complaints swiftly and simply, introducing the concept of ‘consumer’ and establishing rights. Nonetheless, there was uncertainty about whether legal services provided by lawyers were covered under this law. This ambiguity was resolved with the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi, which determined that legal services do not fall within the ‘service’ definition prescribed by the Consumer Protection Act due to the unique nature of the legal profession. The paper explores the court’s reasoning that highlighted the sui generis characteristics of legal practice, emphasizing its integral role in the judiciary and its distinctiveness from commercial or trade services. Furthermore, this document discusses the distinctions made between legal and medical professions regarding the applicability of consumer protection, with a particular focus on the standards of professional conduct monitored by the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act of 1961. This decision underscores the need for professional autonomy free from the consumer service framework to maintain judicial integrity and lawyers’ duties to the court and their clients. The Supreme Court’s delineation between professional services and consumer services provides crucial insights into the regulatory frameworks suitable for different professions in the evolving market dynamics.
KEYWORDS
- Consumer Protection Act
- Legal service
- Advocates Act,1961
- Contract of service
- Professional liability
INTRODUCTION
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to provide a simpler and quicker access to redressal of consumer grievances. The Act for the first time introduced the concept of ‘consumer’ and conferred express additional rights on him. Due emphasis should be given on the fact that here the meaning of consumer is not in the literal sense, but as defined by the Act under section 2 (7). This Act provides protection to only those who fall under the ambit of the defined meaning.
When the question of who can seek help under the Act is answered, another query arises; who is liable under the said Act. Section 2(42) defines “service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The data of the paper is qualitative in nature. It has been collected through recent court proceedings and analyzing its historical relevance. The paper has also covered legal blog posts and has an understanding of relevant sections from the Act itself.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 re-enacted in 2019: relevant sections such as 2(7) and 2(42) has been used to back claims.
D.K. Gandhi v. M Mathias: a NCDRC ruling that has great historical relevance in the main idea of the paper.
Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Another: The final landmark case that established the liability of lawyers and further triggered consideration of liability of other professions such as medicine under the Act.
SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES STANCE OF LAWYER’S LIABILITY
An interesting debate revolves around the idea of liability of lawyers under the Act. The Supreme Court in May, 2024 overturned a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s ruling on the liability of lawyers under the Consumer Act.
The previous judgement of NCDRC in D.K. Gandhi v. M Mathias, 2007 stated that lawyers could be held accountable for deficiency in service and if a fee was paid. Their professional service would fall under the understanding of Section 2 (42) of the Act.
Later, the Bar of Indian Lawyers with their President filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the previous judgement. In this case, Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, gave a landmark decision putting the debate to rest, stating that lawyers do not fall under the scope of Consumer Protection Act. The bench comprising of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal considered various aspects to come to this decision.
Legislative intent: The consumer law was enacted in 1986 and re-enacted in 2019 due to vast gaps that was created as a result of fast market evolutions. These gaps were a threat to consumers and thus re-enactment was necessary to safeguard them. The court believed that the Act was never meant to include professionals and to protect users from exploitation from at the hands of manufacturers and traders. It would not be right to compare professional services with businesses, involving a commercial idea. The court held the view that any interpretation going beyond preamble of the act by including professionals would be stretching the scope of the Act.
Consequentialist approach: the court also looked into the consequences of including lawyers into the Consumer Protection Act. There would be a huge number of suits against lawyers from frustrated clients who think their lawyers did not work in their full potential. The court considered that profession includes advanced and detailed study of subject matter, there is nothing to say that laymen users of such service understand the profession and actions as well as the learned do. Thus, the court gave lawyers the benefit of the doubt.
“The Court said that, having regard to the nature of work of a professional, which requires high level of education, training and proficiency and which involves skilled and specialized kind of mental work, operating in the specialized spheres, where achieving success would depend upon many other factors beyond a man’s control, a Professional cannot be treated equally or on a par with a Businessman or a Trader or a Service provider of products or goods as contemplated in the CP Act. Similarly, the services rendered by a Businessman or a Trader to the consumers regarding his goods or products cannot be equated with the Services provided by a Professional to his clients regarding his specialized branch of profession.”
Sui generis nature of legal profession: The court hypothetically assumed that if all professions fall under the consumer protection framework, then does law have a sui generis nature to be exempted from the Act. It was observed that law as a profession does have a different standing as compared to other professions. Lawyers are not just liable to a client, they also have a duty to assist the court. The essence of the character of advocacy is marked by the role it plays in the three pillars of democracy (legislature, judiciary, executive). The integral part lawyers play in guiding the court and ensuring justice is delivered, makes their profession much more important than all others.
Though, it should be noted that the court did not mean to undermine any other professional and their work by giving due to importance to advocacy. The medical profession is also under consideration by the Chief Justice himself. In Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha, 1996, the Supreme Court held that doctors fall under the definition of service as in the Act. The argument at that time was “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.”
Services availed of a lawyer, “contract of personal service”?: ‘contract of service’ and ‘contract for service’ are different concepts. The first one is an agreement between an employer and employee. While the latter is a client- contractor relationship, where the contractor carries on the business on their own accord. The definition of service is three fold in the Act i.e. explanatory, inclusionary, exclusionary. This excludes ‘contract of personal service’, thus putting forth the question what category of contract does legal services fall into. According to the court, the client exercises direct control over the lawyer who provides his professional legal services. Moreover, the court relied on Order III of the CPC, which concerns agents and advocates. From a joint reading of the relevant sections, it became clear that a lawyer whose name is registered on the state roll of a bar council is authorized to practice in all courts. However, a lawyer can only represent a client through a ‘vakalatnama’. Therefore, the client has significant control over the actions of the lawyer. Considering all these factors, the court concluded that the nature of the contract between the lawyer and their client is ‘of service’ rather than ‘for service’. Consequently, the contract between a client and a lawyer does not fall under the definition of ‘service’ as prescribed by law.
Even though the Consumer Protection Act does not include legal services, it does not mean lawyers will not be liable for their misconduct. The Advocates Act, 1961 specifically deals with the legal profession. The Bar Council of India has established comprehensive guidelines for professional behaviour and etiquette under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act. As a result, a client can always file a complaint regarding misbehaviour with the State Bar Council, where the concerned advocate is enrolled. In addition to being watchful, the Bar Councils are considerate enough to recognise cases that concern the legal community. It is clear that the Advocates Act already addresses matters concerning the behaviour of solicitors. Because the Advocates Act is a unique statute, it would therefore supersede the Consumer Protection Act’s framework with regard to Advocates’ behaviour. It is also specified that the client can bring action against the lawyer, civil or criminal in nature arising out of professional misconduct or negligence.
Furthermore, given that there is no universal standard of care or objective test that can be prescribed as the threshold in the case of the legal profession to adjudicate upon the question of abdication of duty to care, the Court’s distinction between the legal and the medical professions in this particular case was appropriate. When the particular types of unpredictability involved in a legal issue are taken into consideration, this lack of an objective standard becomes evident. A court case is uncertain due to its high degree of dependence on the other party’s actions and the interpretation of the law.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s decision finally brings the long standing issue to a standstill. There is always a chance that a case won’t be decided exactly, and it’s possible that this is due to circumstances beyond the advocate’s control. This ruling acknowledges the natural complexity and unpredictability of court cases, where an advocate’s efforts may not always result in the desired result. The Court recognises that navigating unforeseen situations and relying largely on judicial interpretations are important aspects of the legal process, as no one party can fully control or predict how events will evolve.
In light of this, the Court underlined that solicitors must be free to carry out their duties without worrying about consumer lawsuits threatening to interfere with decisions that are frequently outside of their direct control. In order to ensure that advocates can do their duties with honesty and proper care, free from undue pressure or fear of retaliation due to the unpredictable nature of court decisions, such an environment is essential.
This decision also emphasises how crucial it is to keep a separate line between ordinary consumer transactions and the sophisticated, specialised services rendered by legal experts. The work that advocates do cannot be compared to that of regular commercial services since they are essential to maintaining the foundations of democracy and justice. Thus, the Court’s ruling exempting attorneys from the Consumer Protection Act’s provisions upholds the larger judicial system ideals of justice and equity in addition to safeguarding the independence and integrity of the legal profession
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling provides advocates with the essential immunity, recognising the particular difficulties faced by the legal profession and guaranteeing that attorneys will always be able to defend the law. In order to preserve the effectiveness and integrity of legal procedures and promote a just and equitable legal system, this judicial clarity is crucial.
SUBMITTED BY:
Prachi Agarwal
O.P Jindal Global University