The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently rejected a petition claiming inadequate legal services against an attorney, concluding that the services of a lawyer are not subject to the Consumer Protection Act.
A panel comprising Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Subhendu Samanta upheld the decisions made by the Visakhapatnam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, all of which had dismissed the petitioner’s complaint against his lawyer.
The court stated, “We believe that the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the advocate under the Consumer Protection Act was not valid. The dismissal of the complaint is justified,” in an order issued on June 24.
This ruling drew upon a Supreme Court decision which clarified that complaints regarding inadequate service against legal practitioners are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act of 2019.
The petitioner had accused the lawyer of failing to adequately represent him in a civil suit and filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Commission in Visakhapatnam back in 2014.
The complaint was formally dismissed in March 2022. Subsequent appeals to the State Commission and a revision petition to the National Commission were also turned down, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
The court observed that the petitioner’s counsel failed to convince the court regarding the viability of the complaint against an attorney for alleged deficiencies in legal services under the Consumer Protection Act.
The bench reaffirmed the established legal principle that advocates are not encompassed by the Consumer Protection Act in relation to services rendered in the legal context.
The court noted that the Supreme Court had determined that in India, professional services, particularly those provided by lawyers, are exempt from consumer protection regulations.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court had overturned a previous perspective held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that allowed for complaints against lawyers regarding service inadequacies.
The High Court remarked, “The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had previously held that complaints regarding an advocate’s inadequate service fell within the Consumer Protection Act’s scope. However, the Supreme Court declared this view incorrect and annulled the Commission’s ruling.”
In light of the findings that the consumer complaint was not maintainable, the bench saw no grounds to challenge the decisions made by the consumer forums.
“There is no need to alter any of the three contested orders within the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed,” the court stated.
In a 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that lawyers cannot be held accountable for inadequate service under the Consumer Protection Act and suggested revisiting the 1995 ruling that allowed for medical professionals to be liable under the 1986 Act.
A bench led by Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal indicated that the legislature did not intend for legal services to fall under the Consumer Protection Act’s jurisdiction as it was re-enacted in 2019, countering a 2007 judgment from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had claimed that lawyers’ services were included under section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986.
Justice Trivedi, while delivering her judgment, emphasized, “We categorically state that we do not imply that lawyers cannot be sued for negligence in the regular course of law; however, they are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act.”
The bench concluded that the legal profession is unique and cannot be equated to any other profession, stating, “Consequently, a complaint alleging inadequate service against lawyers practicing in the legal field would not be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.”
Ashish Shaji holds the position of Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, specializing in legal journalism. With a formal legal education and extensive editorial experience, Ashish delivers in-depth coverage and insightful analysis of court cases and significant judicial rulings for a nationwide audience.
His expertise in legal reporting includes breaking down complex judicial decisions from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, as well as monitoring legislative developments and their practical impacts on the public and legal community.
With over five years of experience in the field, Ashish has contributed to several specialized legal platforms, refining his capability to communicate intricate information effectively. His previous roles include positions at Lawsikho, Verdictum, and Enterslice, where he focused on legal education, high-quality legal news, and the intersection of legal and financial advisory services.
