New Delhi :The Supreme Court on Tuesday said its judgment in Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha & Others (1995), which brought the medical profession within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, “deserves to be revisited”.
A bench comprising justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said it is of the opinion that the decision of the three-judge bench, in case of Indian Medical Association vs. V.P Shantha (1995) deserves to be revisited and considered by a larger bench. “We, therefore, refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India for His Lordship’s consideration”, it said.
The apex court in Indian Medical Association Vs VP Shantha case, brought the medical profession within the ambit of a service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection (CP) Act, 1986.
Justice Trivedi, in her judgment, said the court is conscious of the decision in Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha & others, where this court had held that the wide amplitude of the definition of ‘service’ in the main part of section 2(1)(o), of the CP Act, 1986, would cover the services rendered by Medical Practitioners within the said section 2(1)(o).
"In our humble opinion, the said decision deserves to be revisited having regard to the history, object, purpose and the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act and in view of the opinion expressed by us hereinabove to the effect that neither the 'profession' could be treated as 'business' or 'trade' nor the services provided by the 'professionals' could be treated at par with the services provided by the businessmen or the traders, so as to bring them within the purview of the CP Act," said Justice Trivedi.
Section 2(1)(o) of the Act defines the word "service" to mean a "service of any description, which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service".
The bench made this observation while ruling that services rendered by lawyers to their clients are sui generis and cannot be called in question under the Consumer Protection (CP) Act, 1986. The apex court stressed that a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against advocates' practising legal profession would not be maintainable under the CP Act.
Read More
1.SC Rejects Pleas For ECI To Take Action Against BJP Leaders For Alleged Divisive Speeches
