• The Supreme Court has ruled that lawyers do not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act and cannot be sued for ‘deficiency in service’ before the consumer courts.

• The Supreme Court said a considerable amount of direct control is exercised by the client over the manner in which an advocate renders his services during the course of his employment.

• The services hired or availed of an advocate would be that of a contract “of personal service” and would, therefore, stand excluded from the definition of ‘service’, it said.

What is the case about?

• The judgment came on a plea filed by the bar bodies and other individuals challenging a 2007 verdict of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which has ruled that advocates and their services come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

• In its 2007 judgment, the consumer commission held that advocates come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and can be sued in a consumer court by their clients for any deficiency in service.

• The national consumer forum’s verdict had held that the legal services rendered by lawyers would come within the ambit of section 2(1)(o) of the 1986 Act.

• Section 2(1)(o) of the Act defines the word ‘service’ to mean a “service of any description, which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”.

• The Supreme Court, however, stayed the verdict of the NCDRC in April 2009.

Key points of the SC verdict:

• A bench of Justices said the legal profession is “sui generis” (unique) and the nature of work is specialised and cannot be compared with other professions.

• The very purpose and object of the Consumer Protection 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.

• 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. 

• A complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against advocates practising legal profession would not be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

• The objective of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide to the consumers timely and effective administration and settlement of their disputes.

• If the services provided by all the professionals are also brought within the purview of the Act, there would be flood-gate of litigations in the commissions/forums established under the Act, particularly because the remedy provided under the Act is inexpensive and summary in nature.

• Observing that the legal profession cannot be equated with any other traditional professions, the bench said it is not commercial in nature but is essentially a service-oriented and noble profession.

• The legal profession is different from the other professions also for the reason that what the advocates do, affects not only an individual but the entire administration of justice, which is the foundation of the civilised society. It must be remembered that the legal profession is a solemn and serious profession.

What is the role of NCDRC?

• The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 came into force in July 2020 with the government notifying rules for its implementation. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 replaced the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

• The new Act empowers consumers and helps them in protecting their rights through various provisions like Consumer Protection Councils, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, Mediation, Product Liability and punishment for manufacture or sale of products containing adulterants or spurious goods.

• The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) is a three-tier quasi-judicial machinery that has been set up at district, state and national level for better protection of the interests of consumers and to provide simple and speedy redressal of consumer disputes.

• NCDRC was set up in 1988 under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. 

• Its head office is in New Delhi.

• If a consumer is not satisfied by the decision of a District Forum, he/she can appeal to the State Commission. The consumer can move a petition to the National Commission against the order of the State Commission. 

• The NCDRC is the apex body for redressal of consumer grievances. 

• It is headed by a sitting or retired judge of the Supreme Court of India and has seven members.

• A selection committee recommends names of candidates for appointment as members from amongst the applicants in order of merit for the consideration of the central government. The Centre seeks approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet after scrutiny.

• Members of NCDRC shall hold office for a period of five years. The term of appointment is, however, subject to the maximum age limit of 67 years.

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store