The Supreme Court is set to examine whether services rendered by the lawyer would come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The issue, which is relevant for members of the Bar, emerged from a judgment delivered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2007. The Commission had ruled that the services rendered by lawyers are covered under Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Needless to say, the said provision defines Service.
It was held that a Lawyer may not be responsible for the favorable outcome of a case as the result/outcome does not depend upon only the lawyer’s work. However, if there was a deficiency in rendering services promised, for which he receives consideration in the form of a fee, then the lawyers can be proceeded against under the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, it was also opined that the contract between the client and a lawyer is bilateral. On receipt of fees, the commission said the lawyer would appear and represent the matter on behalf of his client. It is against this order that the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. Earlier, in 2009, the Top Court had stayed the impugned judgment of the Commission.
Today (February 14), the Bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal heard the matter in part. The appellant, Bar of Indian Lawyers, was represented by the Senior Advocate Narender Hooda and Advocate Jasbir Malik. In the written submissions, it has been contended that a lawyer is not just a mouthpiece for her client but is also an officer of the court. It was also stressed that a certain amount of immunity and independence is necessary for a lawyer while discharging his/ her duties as an Officer of the Court. “A Lawyer is required to perform her professional duties by being completely objective. Needless to say, objectivity can come only’ to a fearless mind; fearless from any vexatious and frequent consumer cases.”
While distinguishing between the client and a consumer, the Counsel stated that an Attorney-Client Relationship could not be equated with a Service Provider – Consumer Relationship. The impugned judgment was also assailed on the basis that a Counsel, by the nature of his/ her profile, is distinct from other professionals. This is because the counsels not only represent their clients but also discharge their duty as officers of the Court. “As such, a Counsel has to maintain a greater degree of detachment/objectivity in relation to the cause of her client, in comparison to other professionals.” On the issue of contract, it was argued that the Client engages an Advocate through a Vakalatnama or Power of Attorney or Letter of Attorney and not a Service Contract. “Thus, a Vakalatnama or Power of Attorney or Letter of Attorney is only in the form of an authorization in relation to representation on behalf or agency of the Client, and not an agreement to provide a service.
By virtue of a Vakalatnama or Power of Attorney or Letter of Attorney, an Advocate is merely empowered to represent the interests of her client and assist her client in legally protecting/propagating such interests, while at the same time discharging her unique duty as an officer of the Court.” Inter-alia, it was also asserted that the legal profession is regulated by the Bar Council of India through rules established under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Further, a per Section 35 and 36 of the Advocates Act, complaints against an Advocate are to be entertained by the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India. “That it is most respectfully submitted that the function of a Lawyer in terms of the provisions contained in the Advocates Act, 1961 and Rules framed thereunder are markedly and essentially different from the functions of a Service Provider as envisaged in terms of the provisions contained under the Act.,” the appellant contended.
In view of the above projection, the impugned judgment was challenged.
Case Title: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SIGH MALIK vs. D.K.GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES.,
Diary No.- 27751 – 2007″
Page Source : Live Law
