|
advantageconsumer.com
Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela |
|
|
|
advantageconsumer.com
Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela |
|
|
|
SC Refuses to
refer 'VP Shantha' Judgment bringing Doctors within purview of Consumer Protection
Act to Larger Bench.
Agrees To Consider Issue in Appropriate Cases With Factual Foundation. - Tushar Kohli
The Supreme Court today (7th Nov. 2024) refused to refer its Judgment holding medical professionals to be under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA) to a larger Bench stating that the questions on including professionals other than legal professionals under the Act could be considered in an appropriate case later. On May 14, 2023, while holding that Advocates cannot be held liable under the CPA for deficiency of services and that such services do not come under the purview of the Act, a Two Judge Bench of the Apex Court had referred the matter to a larger bench of three judges to reconsider the three-judge Bench Judgment in Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha (1995). A three-judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan disposed of the reference stating, "The question as to whether professionals, other than legal professionals, could be covered by the Consumer Protection Act can be considered in appropriate cases having a factual foundation." The Division Bench in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D. K. Gandhi (2024), Civil Appeal No. 2646 of 2009, had reasoned that the legal profession is sui generis and cannot be compared with other professions to keep it out of the ambit of the CPA. The Court had additionally said that the decision in V.P. Shantha deserves to be revisited and considered by a larger Bench. V.P. Shantha had held that medical professionals could be held liable under the CPA. The three-judge Bench today observed that the reference made in that Judgment was "not necessary". It said, "The Division bench observed that the question as to whether a profession could be treated as business or trade and therefore, covered within the ambit of the definition under Section 2(1)(o) required a revisit." "We find that the issue before the Court was with regards to the legal profession and Court in unequivocal terms came to a conclusion that the legal profession is not covered by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Since the Court came to the aforesaid finding, irrespective of the finding of this Court in Shantha, the reference was not necessary." the Court observed. In view of the above, the Court disposed of the reference. Courtesy: verdictum.in ____________________________________________________________________________________________
Top |
|
|