New Delhi: In a major decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that services rendered by lawyers to their clients are sui generis and cannot be called into question under the Consumer Protection Act.A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal held that advocates cannot be held liable for deficiency in services under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, reenacted in 2019.The top court opined professionals cannot be treated at par with those carrying out buisness and trade.The bench set aside a judgement by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which held that services rendered by the lawyers were covered under the Consumer Protection Act.”There is nothing to suggest that the legislature ever intended to include professions or professionals within the purview of the Act,” the bench said.”Having regard to the nature of work of a professional, which requires a high level of education and training and proficiency, and which involves skill and specialised kind of mental work operating in specialised spheres, where actual success depends on various factors beyond one’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,” Justice Trivedi said, reading out excerpts of the judgment.Justice Mithal endorsed her views, by writing a separate judgement.The court also opined a previous judgment in case of Indian Medical Association Vs V P Shantna (1995) which held that the paid services rendered by the doctors and the medical professionals would fall under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, and should be revisited by a larger bench.Published 14 May 2024, 06:15 IST
Source link
Lawyers cannot be sued for ‘deficiency in service’: Supreme Court
Related Posts
Billionaire Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus dead at 95
Bernard Marcus, the son of Russian-Jewish immigrants who rose from a tenement in Newark, N.J., to create one of the world’s biggest and most recognizable brands, the Home Depot Corp.,…
Column: A huge bank pleaded guilty to conspiring to launder money, so why weren’t top executives charged?
By any measure, the lawbreaking by the U.S. subsidiary of Canada’s Toronto-Dominion Bank was spectacular. The bank, which goes by the name TD Bank in the U.S., facilitated the laundering…