UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL QUESTION :
Whether a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession, would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as re-enacted in 2019?
Whether a “Service” hired or availed of an Advocate would fall within the definition of “Service” contained in the C.P. Act, 1986/2019, so as to bring him within the purview of the said Act?
PURPOSE OF CP IS DIFFERENT : The very purpose and object of the CP Act 1986 as re-enacted in 2019 was to provide protection to the consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices, and the Legislature never intended to include either the Professions or the services rendered by the Professionals within the purview of the said Act of 1986/2019.
PROFESSIONALS ARE NOT TRADERS : It is very well accepted proposition of the fact that Professionals could not be called Businessmen or Traders, nor Clients or Patients be called Consumers.
It is also required to be borne in mind that the terms ‘business’ or ‘trade’ having a commercial aspect involved, could not be used interchangeably with the term ‘Profession’ which normally would involve some branch of learning or science.
Profession as such would require knowledge of an advanced type in a given field of learning or science, or learning gained by a prolonged course of specialized study.
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 at par with a Businessman or a Trader or a Service provider of products or goods as contemplated in the CP Act.
The Legal Profession is sui generis i.e. unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other Profession.
IT IS CONTRACT OF PERSONAL SERVICE : A service hired or availed of an Advocate is a service under “a contract of personal service,” and therefore would fall within the exclusionary part of the definition of “Service” contained in Section 2 (42) of the CP Act 2019.
Therefore, a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession would not be maintainable under the CP Act, 2019.
Supreme Court held the same in BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SINGH MALIK V. D. K. GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES AND ANR 2024 INSC 410 [MAY 2024]
Comments