The Aryavarth Express
Agency (New Delhi): The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case to determine if services provided by lawyers fall under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. This issue, crucial for members of the Bar, arose from a 2007 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission judgment that included lawyers’ services under the Consumer Protection Act’s definition of ‘Service’. The Commission stated that while lawyers may not be accountable for the favorable outcome of a case, they could be held responsible for deficiencies in the services promised.
Senior Advocate Narender Hooda, representing the appellant, argued to distinguish the legal profession from the medical profession, referencing the Supreme Court’s 1995 judgment in Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha. He emphasized that a client’s payment of fees doesn’t equate to controlling the lawyer’s actions, underscoring a lawyer’s duty to assist the court in its sovereign function. Hooda stressed that lawyers have an obligation not to withhold any document or judgment against their client’s interest from the court.
Justice Bela Trivedi questioned whether a lawyer could say something adverse to their client’s interest, to which Hooda replied that a lawyer’s primary duty is to assist the court within the law’s confines. He also noted that unlike doctors, lawyers can’t exit a case without reasonable cause or be changed without a no-objection certificate as per Bar Council Rules.
Hooda argued against the classification of legal services as a ‘commercial establishment’ or ‘business activity,’ a position affirmed by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. He emphasized the unique nature of legal services, where the duty to the court takes precedence, unlike other professions.
Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, representing the Bar Council of India, also highlighted the distinct nature of the legal profession, where the lawyer has duties to the court, opposing counsel, and the client. He argued that the medical profession, now largely organized on commercial lines, should not be equated with the legal profession. Krishnakumar asserted that lawyers are subject to action for professional misconduct under Bar Council rules, providing a remedy for service deficiencies.
The arguments are set to continue, addressing the complex question of whether legal services should be treated similarly to other professional services under the Consumer Protection Act. This case holds significant implications for the legal profession and its accountability under consumer law.
