In a recent hearing before the Supreme Court, a significant debate unfolded regarding the inclusion of lawyer services within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The discussion stemmed from a judgment delivered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2007, which ruled that services rendered by lawyers fall under the Act's definition of "Service." 

This decision has prompted considerable contention, leading to a Division bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal reviewing the matter.

Representing the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta articulated several key arguments against bringing lawyer services under the Consumer Protection Act. 

One primary contention raised was the lack of control lawyers have over the environment in which their services are rendered. Unlike other professions, such as medicine, where practitioners have some control over the treatment environment, lawyers operate within the framework set by judges, which can impact the outcome of cases.

Gupta emphasized that the ultimate "product" of legal services is the judgment delivered by the court, over which lawyers have limited control. He illustrated this point by highlighting situations where a lawyer's actions may be curtailed by the court's decisions during proceedings. Additionally, he underscored the ethical dilemmas lawyers face in balancing their duties to their clients, the court, the opposing party, and the public interest.

One crucial aspect discussed during the proceedings was the absence of a universally applicable standard of care for legal practitioners, unlike the medical profession. 

Gupta referenced the landmark case of Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha, which established a standard of care for healthcare professionals. In contrast, he argued that due to the diverse styles of advocacy and the contextual nature of legal practice, imposing a standard of care for lawyers would be impractical and inappropriate.

Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, representing the Bar Council of India, further highlighted discrepancies in previous judgments and advocated for a re-examination of the issue by a three-judge bench. 

He pointed out ambiguities in defining "service" under the Act and raised concerns about the subjective determination of what constitutes a "complicated" case, which could be relegated to civil courts.

In response to these arguments, the bench posed insightful queries regarding the implications of lawyer negligence and the challenges of maintaining ethical standards in legal practice. Justice Trivedi particularly emphasized the need to evaluate each case individually to determine negligence.

The hearing underscored the complex nature of the relationship between lawyers, clients, and the judicial system, raising pertinent questions about accountability, ethical standards, and the scope of consumer protection laws. 

While the debate continues, it remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will reconcile these competing interests and provide clarity on the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to lawyer services.

The hearing is expected to continue, with further deliberation on the nuanced aspects of the issue in the days to come.

Case: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SIGH MALIK vs. D.K.GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES.