New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said there is a need to reconsider its 1995 judgment bringing the medical profession under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said the decision of the three-judge bench should be reconsidered and considered by a larger bench.
"In our humble opinion, the said decision should be reconsidered having regard to the history, object, purpose and scheme of the Consumer Protection Act and keeping in mind the opinion expressed by us herein above, nor should the 'profession' do so. Neither shall the services provided by 'professionals' be treated as 'business' or 'trade' equivalent to those provided by businessmen or traders, so as to bring them within the ambit of the CP Act. '' the bench said.
The bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for consideration.In 1995, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in the Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha case, which brought the medical profession within the scope of service defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Section 2(1)(o) of the Act defines the term “service” to mean “a service of a description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, but which These include, but are not limited to, financing, insurance, transportation, processing, supply of electricity or other energy, boarding or lodging or both, construction of accommodations, entertainment, or distribution of news or other information. Does not include providing under contract of personal service”.
The top court's comments came while delivering a judgment which had held that lawyers do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and cannot be sued for "deficiency in service" before consumer courts.The bench clarified that this means that professionals cannot be prosecuted or held liable for their alleged misconduct or fraudulent or criminal acts.
“In the process of overall degradation and erosion of moral values professional ethics are deteriorating, cases of professional misconduct are also increasing. Undoubtedly, there is no immunity for any professional, legal, medical or any other professional from being sued or Being held liable for his professional or otherwise misconduct or other misdeeds causing legal monetary or other injuries to his clients or persons who hire or avail of his services.
“The fact that professionals are governed by their respective councils such as the BA Council or the Medical Council will also not exempt them from civil or criminal liability arising from their professional misconduct or negligence.“Nevertheless, as discussed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that neither the businesses nor the professionals were ever intended to be brought within the ambit of the CP Act in 1986 or 2019,” it said.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said the decision of the three-judge bench should be reconsidered and considered by a larger bench.
"In our humble opinion, the said decision should be reconsidered having regard to the history, object, purpose and scheme of the Consumer Protection Act and keeping in mind the opinion expressed by us herein above, nor should the 'profession' do so. Neither shall the services provided by 'professionals' be treated as 'business' or 'trade' equivalent to those provided by businessmen or traders, so as to bring them within the ambit of the CP Act. '' the bench said.
The bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for consideration.In 1995, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in the Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha case, which brought the medical profession within the scope of service defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Section 2(1)(o) of the Act defines the term “service” to mean “a service of a description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, but which These include, but are not limited to, financing, insurance, transportation, processing, supply of electricity or other energy, boarding or lodging or both, construction of accommodations, entertainment, or distribution of news or other information. Does not include providing under contract of personal service”.
The top court's comments came while delivering a judgment which had held that lawyers do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and cannot be sued for "deficiency in service" before consumer courts.The bench clarified that this means that professionals cannot be prosecuted or held liable for their alleged misconduct or fraudulent or criminal acts.
“In the process of overall degradation and erosion of moral values professional ethics are deteriorating, cases of professional misconduct are also increasing. Undoubtedly, there is no immunity for any professional, legal, medical or any other professional from being sued or Being held liable for his professional or otherwise misconduct or other misdeeds causing legal monetary or other injuries to his clients or persons who hire or avail of his services.
“The fact that professionals are governed by their respective councils such as the BA Council or the Medical Council will also not exempt them from civil or criminal liability arising from their professional misconduct or negligence.“Nevertheless, as discussed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that neither the businesses nor the professionals were ever intended to be brought within the ambit of the CP Act in 1986 or 2019,” it said.
