The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has turned down a reference by a two-judge bench to reconsider its 1995 judgment which brought the services rendered by medical practitioners under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K V Vishwanathan termed the reference made on May 14, 2024 to the larger bench as unnecessary.
In its November 7 order, the bench noted the question before a division bench (which made the reference) was as to whether the legal professional could be covered by the provisions of Section 2(1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
While considering the specific question, the division bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal had come to the conclusion that the legal profession is sui generis that it is unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other profession.
The bench noted this court had then also held that the 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 (Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986).
However, the division bench was of the opinion that in the case of “Indian Medical Association Vs V P Shantha”, reported in (1995) wherein this court was considering whether medical practitioners would be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act required to be revisited.
The division bench had further observed that the question as to whether a ‘profession’ could be treated as ‘business’ or ‘trade’ and, therefore, covered within the ambit of the definition under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986], required a revisit.
"We find that the issue before the court regarding the legal profession was addressed in unequivocal terms, leading to the conclusion that the legal profession is not covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act," the bench said.
"We, therefore, find that since this court came to that conclusion, irrespective of the finding in the case of Indian Medical Association, the reference to a larger bench was not necessary," the bench added.
The larger bench also felt that the question as to whether the other professionals, excluding the legal professionals could be covered by the Consumer Protection Act, can be considered in an appropriate case, having a factual foundation.