Advocates Can’t Be Held Liable for Deficiency in Services Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 | SC

Case Details: Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases - [2024] 162 taxmann.com 461 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Bela M. Trivedi & Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Facts of the Case

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that lawyers’ services are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. This decision revisits a 2007 ruling by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which had previously held that legal services fell under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court was asked to determine if complaints alleging ‘deficiency in services’ against practising advocates are maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as re-enacted in 2019. The Court emphasised that the Consumer Protection Act’s purpose is to shield consumers from unfair and unethical business practices. The Legislature, it noted, did not intend to include professional services within the scope of the Act.

Highlighting the unique nature of the legal profession, the Court explained that the relationship between a client and an advocate is distinct. Advocates act as agents for their clients, owing fiduciary duties and respecting client autonomy. Clients exert significant control over how advocates perform their duties in court, strengthening the argument that legal services constitute a personal service contract.

The Court underscored that professionals, unlike businessmen, require high levels of education, skill, and mental effort. Their success often hinges on factors beyond their control. Thus, treating professionals as equivalent to businessmen under the Consumer Protection Act is inappropriate.

Conclusively, the Supreme Court ruled that services hired from an advocate fall under “a contract of personal service” and are thus excluded from the definition of “service” in Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. This decision reinforces the exclusion of legal services from the Consumer Protection framework.