|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In several cases the apex consumer court has made it clear that lawyers are as liable as doctors or any other professionals for negligence in providing their service. Yet, lawyers continue to fight against it and, what’s worse, some courts at the district and the state level even help them by giving orders that are not in line with the settled law on the issue. This is exactly what happened last year. The Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in its order dated March 10,2006, held that the services rendered by lawyers would not come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, consumers had no right to file cases against lawyers before the court. The state commission’s reasoning was that the client executes the power of attorney, authorising the lawyer to do certain acts on his behalf, and there is no term of contract as to the liability of the lawyer in case he fails to do any such act. The state commission also opined that when a client hires a lawyer, it is a unilateral contract executed by the client, giving authority to the lawyer to appear and represent the matter on his behalf without any specific assurance or undertaking. Therefore, lawyers were not liable under the CP Act for deficient or negligent service. This order has now been set aside by the apex court. While doing so, it has clarified that lawyers do come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and clients have every right to take them to courts if they failed to do what was expected of them. In fact the apex court has mentioned two grounds on which a lawyer can be hauled up for negligence: (1) if he did not possess the legal skills which he claimed to possess; and (2) if he did not exercise with reasonable competence, the skill that he did possess. Dismissing the order of the state commission as "totally erroneous", the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has pointed out that the ambit and scope of the definition "service" in the Consumer Protection Act was wide and by now well established and covered all services except those rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service. The national commission referred to the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Medical Association vs V.P. Shantha , wherein, holding the doctors liable under the Consumer Protection Act, the apex court had observed that professionals operate in spheres where success cannot be achieved in every case and very often success or failure depends upon factors beyond man’s control. It also referred to the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. state of Punjab, wherein the Supreme Court had held that in law of negligence, professionals such as lawyers, doctors, architects and others are included in the category of persons professing some special skill. A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed with the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. So those lawyers who take money from clients but fail to appear before the court or appear without any proper homework on the case or do such a shoddy job of representing that the clients lose cases, should all beware. Failure to exercise with reasonable competence their legal skills would render them liable under the Consumer Protection Act.
|
||
|
|
||
