In the present case, the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgement addressing the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act (“CP Act”) to legal services.
The Respondent in the present case, hired the Appellant's services to file a complaint against for dishonouring a cheque. The sum to be paid was delivered to the Appellant but did not reach the Respondent. Moreover, the Appellant filed a suit claiming that the sum was due to him as his fees.
In the complaint filed before the District Consumer Forum, the Appellant argued that the forum had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. However, the District Forum decided in the favour of the Respondent. The appeal before the State Commission was allowed holding that the services of advocates did not fall within the ambit of a ‘Service’ defined under Section 2(1) of the CP Act. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) held inter alia that if there was any deficiency in service rendered by the Advocates/Lawyers, a complaint under the CP Act would be maintainable.
The Supreme Court reached the conclusion that the legislature never intended to include professions or services rendered by professionals under the CP Act. This contradicts a 28-year-old judgement in Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha, which held medical professionals fall within the CP Act. The court addressed procedural propriety issues and observed that the decision of this case deserves to be revisited. Additionally, the court observed that the legal profession is not commercial in nature but is essentially a service oriented, noble profession, therefore the profession is sui generis i.e. unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other profession.
The Supreme Court held that the services rendered by an advocate do not fall within the ambit of the CP Act and that they come under the “a contract of personal service” as opposed to a “contract for service”. The Supreme Court ruling underscores the importance of maintaining high standards of professional ethics and conduct within the legal system. It highlights the procedure and principles governing the disciplinary actions against advocates.