The Supreme Court in a recent judgement in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. DK Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 2646 of 2009) held that 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 Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Court also considered whether the Legislature ever intended to include Professions or the service rendered by Professionals within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as re-enacted in 2019. It was held that the Consumer Protection Act was enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers against their exploitation by traders and manufacturers of consumer goods and, was not to include services provided by professionals like Advocates, Doctors etc. within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

It was further observed that the terms ‘business’ or ‘trade’ have a commercial aspect involved, and therefore, could not be used interchangeably with the term ‘Profession’ which normally would involve some branch of learning or science. Thus, having regard to the nature of work of a professional, which require high level of education, training and proficiency and which involves skilled and specialized spheres, where achieving success would depend of 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 Consumer Protection Ac

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the very purpose and object of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as re-enacted in 2019 was to provide protection to the consumers from the unfair trade practices and unethical business practices only.

The Supreme Court however, clarified that it does not propose to say that the professionals could not be sued or held liable for their alleged misconduct or tortious or criminal acts. In the process of overall depletion and erosion of ethical values and degradation of the professional ethics, the instances of professional misconduct are also on the rise. Undoubtedly, no professional either legal, medical or any other professional enjoys any immunity from being sued or from being held liable for his professional or otherwise misconduct or other misdeeds causing legal, monetary or other injuries to his clients or the persons hiring or availing his services. The fact that professionals are governed by their respective Councils like Bar Councils or Medical Councils also would not absolve them from their civil or criminal liability arising out of their professional misconduct or negligence.

The Supreme Court further took note of the judgement of a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court (Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha) which held that services rendered by medical professionals would fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and referred the said judgement to be considered by a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court.

By - C. George Thomas