Mint Primer: Has consumer protection just got weaker?

What did the Supreme Court say?

On 14 May, the apex court ruled that advocates cannot be tried under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for any deficiency in service. The court was hearing an appeal against a 2007 ruling by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which held lawyers accountable under the Act if there was a deficiency in their service and a fee had been paid. This means that an advocate cannot be taken now to the consumer redressal forums if a client is not happy with his or her service. They can only be sued in ordinary courts for negligence and other malpractices.

What was the reason behind this ruling?

The Supreme Court classified legal representation as a ‘unique service’ and said it cannot be defined as a service under the Consumer Protection Act. It said there were no indications that the legislature wanted to include professionals under the Act. In other words, the court drew a clear distinction between professionals and those involved in business. Professionals, governed by the respective regulatory bodies such as Bar Council of India or Indian Medical Association, are not under the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. Aggrieved clients can take recourse through the respective regulatory bodies.

How does the Consumer Protection Act help us?

It was enacted in 1986 to protect consumers by offering simpler and quicker redressal. Before the law, consumers had to file a civil suit in a regular court which resulted in a long-drawn legal battle. A three-tier legal structure involving district, state and national Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions was set up to speed up justice for consumers.

What about the doctors now?

While delivering the judgment exempting lawyers, the apex court also indicated that its 1996 judgment in the Indian Medical Association Vs V.P. Shantha case—where the court had held that doctors come under the purview of the Act if a fee was paid—needs to be revisited. It also referred that ruling to Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud to be placed before a larger bench. This would mean that doctors, who are also professionals, could also be exempted from the provisions of the Act eventually.

Is this a setback for consumers?

In a way, it is. Though exempting lawyers, doctors and other professionals from the purview of the Act is not a dead end for consumers, as they can still approach regular courts for any deficiency in service, the process is certain to become laborious and time-consuming. They cannot benefit from the consumer disputes redressal forums set up specifically for them. Also, this decision (of exempting professionals from the Act) will add to the burden of regular courts which are already weighed down.