|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Refuses To Reconsider Judgment Which Brought
Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act
It
gives me immense satisfaction to note that the Supreme Court, on the 7th
Nov., has refused to reconsider its earlier landmark judgment of 1995 (Indian
Medical Association Vs V.P.Shanta), which declared that the medical professionals
do come under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For details, please
'click' here.
8th Nov. 2024
B.Vaidyanathan
Chief Mentor
|
Lawyers do not
come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act
An interesting
and important Order has been pronounced by the Supreme Court, recently.
The two concurring judgments pronounced by (Ms.) Justice Bela M. Trivedi
and Justice Pankaj Mithal on various counts have ruled that the advocates
do not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, in short,
the Act.
While Justice Trivedi’s reasoning goes to address
the basic concept of “Contract for Personal Service”, like that
of a housemaid, which are excluded from the purview of the Act. The
rationale of excluding an unskilled or at the maximum a semi-skilled individual,
male or female, whose services are to a substantial extent are manual
in nature, is obviously clear, as they perform their duty as directed
by her mistress and she does not have any control, even to prioritise
them, as per her wish. In contrast, by any stretch of imagination
can services of an advocate be compared with such deprived and underprivileged
workers, is a mute question.
Still contentious, is the recommendation to
the Chief Justice of India to reconstitute a larger bench and reconsider
the earlier decision of the Court, in Indian Medical Association
vs. V.P. Shantha & Others, which unequivocally brought the
medical negligence under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
Since the judgment is a bit lengthy to publish in our in-house newsletter,
Advantage Consumer, I have presented the
concurring judgment of Justice Mithal only (in the May
2024 issue).
In the concurring judgment, elaborate details
have been discussed about different countries, which have excluded the
legal professionals from the ambit of the Consumer Protection Law.
An important logic put forward is that since Advocates Act, 1961,
is in place, any negligence on the part of the lawyer can be tried under
that Act.
A relevant aspect of the Consumer Protection
Act needs to be noted. It is only an enabling Act to protect the
consumers, with summary trials, in a time bound and cost-effective manner.
Under this structure only, all defective products and deficient services
are to be addressed, by applying various statues which are already available;
whether it is the Standards of Weights & Measures Act (Packaged Commodity
Rules), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, etc. That being so,
Consumer Courts also have the wherewithal to try negligence as stipulated
under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Before I conclude, it is worth noting that
in the entire history of the Consumer Protection Act, of over 34 years,
one hardly comes across cases pertaining to the negligence of the Lawyers,
who are penalised by these bodies. That is the reality.
16th May 2024
B.VAIDYANATHAN
Chief Mentor
|
|
KIND ATTENTION
PLEASE!!
For the benefit of readers, we have provided
below the links for our monthly newsletter
Advantage Consumer, which can be utilised Free
of Cost.
|
Consumers will
be better protected - Narendra Modi
Let the consumer
be doomed
Employees are
entitled to benefit of two years weightage under the EPS
Don't Disturb
- Justice is not Supreme
Supreme Court
fails
to uphold the law
Some
suggestions to Chief Justice of India -
Is it
that the Laws & Rules need to
remain only on paper?
Unprincipled
Amendments to Consumer Protection
Act
A big question
mark about the relevance
of the judiciary in safeguarding the
consumer
(Council's
Curative Petition dismissed)
In India, consumers have
been at the receiving end
since long. One thought that things
will change for the better
after the Consumer Protection Act was
enacted in 1986 and a structured approach
was adopted to promote and safeguard the
interests of the consumers.
But after 2004, things have gone from bad to worse.
Commencing from the castration of the Central
Consumer Protection Council, the relevance
of the consumer Act itself has been brought
into question. If the government
is found wanting and none too serious to strengthen
this voluntary initiative of the individuals
to do their bit for a healthy society, which in
any case is bound to benefit the industry, its competitiveness
and the country as a whole, myopic approach
only appear to rule the roost, as on date.
Important amendments which
were brought in 2003 to the Consumer
Protection Act, with a clear objective
of penalising Unfair Trade Practices
and to compensate the consumer/litigant
adequately have been frustrated by
the indifferent approach of the National
Commission as well as the Supreme Court.
That is why, giving the benefit of doubt to
the bench which did not do justice to the
issues placed before it by Consumer Protection Council,
Rourkela, and to take the issues pursued by it
to the logical end, Curative Petition was filed.
The GROUNDS
categorically illustrate the denial
of Natural Justice to
the Petitioner Council and the failure
of the Court in addressing the issues
raised in the Appeal.
Rupa Ashok Hurra
case specifically has laid Violation of
Principles of Natural justice as the valid
ground for considering a Curative Petition.
Question is whether a narrow view of
non-issue of notice alone should be taken as
the requisite ground for allowing the Appeal or blatant
denial to consider the Grounds of Appeal
by the concerned bench should be treated alike,
in the larger interests of justice? If
this anomaly is not addressed, Curative
Petitions will only be found useful when
the media start highlighting an issue, like the LGBT
case leading to the strength of the population deciding
the outcome of the Curative Petition.
This does not augur well for a civilized democratic
country.
Learned ex-Justice of
Gujarat & Rajasthan High
Courts, Sri M.R.Calla, and designated
Sr. Advocate of the Supreme Court had
unequivocally advocated for allowing the Curative
Petition of the Council, pointing
out the gross miscarriage of justice
and denial of natural justice.
But that has not appealed
to the Supreme Court bench headed by
the CJI, who have
dismissed
the Curative Petition, as
per the Order made available on the
internet today.
Something needs
to be done to address and to save
the people from this hyper-technical
approach of the Supreme Court and to promote
the consumer movement, which is after
all in the best interests of the nation.
Will Shri Narendra Modi and his government
do something to stem this rot?
**************
|
How can the Supreme
Court pass an irrelevant order?
'Consumer justice
is your right'
Fleece the consumer
and go scot-free
Finish the consumer
movement?
www.moneylife.in/finish-the-consumer-movement
A consumer organisation
with a difference.
Instead of rendering advisory
services alone, the Council since its
inception, in 1985, has been taking
up issues affecting them through the consumer
courts and other means and feels proud
to have provided relief to crores of people.
These include:
-
Remedial
action against
short filling of LPG in cooking gas refills;
of the 184 LPG Bottling Plants, of the
three Oil Marketing Companies (IOC, BP &
HP), only 4 remain to be automated.
Even these will be modernised within the
next financial year 2013-14).
The quantified loss of nearly Rs. 750 crores
per year to the consumers across the country
has been taken care by this upgradation.
Thanks to the Council's Original Petition
initiatied in 2001, before the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
-
Won
an important case against the
Rourkela Development Authority and secured
financial relief for a group of individuals,
against violation of Plan & Specifications
in the construction of the houses
and delay in handing over the possession.
-
Obtained
a separate District Forum
for Rourkela, though it is not the district
headquarters, which otherwise
necessitated the entire Rourkela population
to approach the Forum, situated at Sundergarh,
a place 100 km away;
-
Re-routing
of Dhanbad-Alleppey Express
train through Chennai Central;
-
Campaigned
against non transferring of excise
duty concessions (to the consumers)
extended by the union government to the industry;
-
Better
upkeep of the railway
coaches of Utkal Kalinga Express and
other trains;
-
Reintroduction
AC Chair Car in Ispat
Express;
-
Refunding
of booking advance
by M/s APSL and M/s LML; and many
more.
It
will not be an exaggeration to add
that its activities have added to the
confidence of the Rourkela population,
against unethical business practices.
The fifth Voluntary Consumer Organisation
in the country to have set
up a Consumer Information Centre,
with the support of
Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public
Distribution, Govt. of India. Has
earned a niche for creating
consumer awareness and
handling of individual
as well as group/class grievances.
It is bringing out an English
monthly Advantage
Consumer, to educate the consumers.
It is represented in various Advisory
bodies.
An Aware Consumer is
an Asset to the Nation
Through this site effort will
be made to disseminate all relevant
information and answers to
many of the queries which are frequently
asked. Knowledge is power and ignorance
is the root cause of all exploitation.
As a consumer, we hope you will find the
site quite useful. Since ours is a voluntary
organisation with meagre resources we have
designed the site on our own and are sure
there will be lot of scope to improve. As such we invite
the public and the visitors to this site to communicate
their valuable feedback, so that we may improve
the contents of this site.
Lots & Lots
of information in store
for you to tap, in the Information Section.
Why wait to click on Information.
If you are keen
to support the Council, you may send in
your donations
through crossed Cheques/Demand Drafts,
drawn in favour of "Consumer Protection
Council, Rourkela". All donations
to the Council are exempted under sec.
80G of the Income Tax Act. The Council is
also registered under the FCRA (Foreign Contribution
Regulation Act).
|
