Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has declined to revisit its 1995 decision in the case of 'Indian Medical Association Vs V P Shantha and Others', which brought the services rendered by medical practitioners within the definition of services under the Consumer Protection Act.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K V Vishwanathan held the reference made on May 14, 2024 to the larger bench was "unnecessary".

On May 14, 2024, a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal had held that a complaint filed against lawyers under the Consumer Protection Act would not be maintainable as services rendered by professionals would not come within the purview of the law.

Having regard to the role, status and duties of the advocates as the professionals, legal profession is sui generis i.e. unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other profession, it had said.

The court also said that neither a profession could be treated as business or trade nor the services provided by the professionals could be treated at par with the services provided by the businessmen or the traders, so as to bring them within the purview of the CP Act, it had then said.

"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," the bench had said. 

The court had opined that a three-judge bench decision in the 1995 case of 'Indian Medical Association Vs V P Shantha and Others' -- which brought services rendered by medical practitioners within the definition of services under the CP Act -- should be revisited by a larger bench.

"In our humble opinion, the said decision deserves to be revisited having regard to the history, object, purpose and the scheme of the CP Act," the bench had said.

Dealing with the reference, the three-judge bench, in its order on November 7, noted that the question before the division bench was as to whether the legal professional could be covered by the provisions of Section 2(1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).

While considering the said question, this court came to a specific conclusion that the legal profession is sui generis, that is it is unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other profession, it pointed out.

This court has also held that the 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 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986], the bench noted.

While considering the said question, this court was of the opinion that in the case of “Indian Medical Association Vs V P Shantha”, reported in (1995) wherein this court was considering whether medical practitioners would be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act requires to be revisited, the court said.

It also pointed out that the division bench of the top court further observed that the question as to whether a ‘profession’ could be treated as ‘business’ or ‘trade’ and, therefore, covered within the ambit of the definition under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986], requires a revisit.

"We find that the issue before the court regarding the legal profession was addressed in unequivocal terms, leading to the conclusion that the legal profession is not covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act," the bench said.

"We, therefore, find that since this court came to that conclusion, irrespective of the finding in the case of Indian Medical Association, the reference to a larger bench was not necessary," the bench added.

The bench opined that the question as to whether the other professionals, excluding the legal professionals could be covered by the Consumer Protection Act, can be considered in an appropriate case, having a factual foundation for deciding the same.

The court thus disposed of the reference made on May 14, 2024.

Case Title: Bar of Indian Lawyers Vs D K Gandhi & Anr