New Delhi: In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has embarked on a crucial inquiry that poses a fundamental question: Why aren’t lawyers held accountable for subpar services, akin to doctors facing consumer courts for negligence? This inquiry, undertaken as the apex court commenced hearings on a cluster of petitions, delves into the classification of legal representation as a “service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The bench, comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal, wasted no time in drawing parallels between legal professionals and medical practitioners. They raised the poignant query: “How is legal representation any different from medical treatment, considering both involve the application of specialized skills and knowledge to address the unique circumstances of a case or patient?”
At the heart of this debate lies a pivotal 2007 judgment by the national consumer commission, which asserted that lawyers fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. This landmark ruling deemed advocates liable to be dragged before consumer courts by dissatisfied clients, highlighting the contractual nature of legal services and the obligation of lawyers to deliver adequate representation for the fees charged.
However, dissenting voices, represented by senior counsel Narender Hooda, argued vehemently against this interpretation. Hooda contended that lawyers occupy a distinct professional space, primarily serving as officers of the court with responsibilities extending beyond client-attorney relationships. He emphasized the inherent unpredictability of legal outcomes, which are not solely contingent on the efforts of a lawyer but also influenced by judicial decisions.
In response, the bench challenged this assertion, underscoring the parallels between legal and medical professions in terms of regulatory oversight and accountability. They emphasized that just as doctors are subject to scrutiny under both medical regulations and consumer protection laws, lawyers too should be held to similar standards of accountability.
Hooda countered by highlighting existing mechanisms within the Advocates Act to address professional misconduct, distinguishing it from consumer grievances. However, the bench remained unconvinced, asserting that the distinction between negligence and misconduct is pivotal and subject to judicial interpretation based on case specifics.
As the proceedings unfolded, the bench acknowledged the potential floodgates of litigation that might ensue if lawyers were subject to consumer court jurisdiction. Yet, they maintained that such concerns are inherent to all professions, including medicine, and should not serve as a barrier to ensuring accountability and redressal for consumers.
The case has significant implications for India’s legal landscape, particularly considering the sheer magnitude of legal practitioners in the country, which stands at approximately 1.3 million, according to the Bar Council of India.
The debate surrounding the legal liability of lawyers reflects broader questions about the nature of professional services and the rights of consumers to seek redressal for inadequate or deficient services. As the Supreme Court continues its deliberations, the outcome of this case will undoubtedly shape the contours of legal accountability in India for years to come.