The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a consumer complaint filed against an advocate, reiterating that legal professionals are not amenable to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act for alleged deficiency in legal services. 

Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases, the Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta held that complaints against advocates for professional services are not maintainable before consumer forums. 

The petitioner had filed Consumer Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Visakhapatnam, alleging deficiency in service by his advocate in relation to the conduct of a civil suit. The District Commission dismissed the complaint on merits by an order dated March 4, 2022. 

Buy Now: Validity of S. 69 of CGST Act Reaffirmed: Supreme Court Arrest Powers Of GST Officer

The petitioner subsequently preferred an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was dismissed on November 16, 2022. Thereafter, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) also dismissed the revision petition on September 20, 2023. Aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 

The principal issue before the High Court was whether a complaint alleging deficiency in legal services rendered by an advocate is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel was unable to establish how such a complaint could survive in light of the prevailing legal position. The Court also noted the submission that a complaint lodged by the petitioner before the State Bar Council against the advocate had already been dismissed. 

The High Court placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases [(2024) 8 SCC 430], which authoritatively settled the controversy regarding the maintainability of consumer complaints against advocates. 

The Supreme Court had held that the legal profession is sui generis and that services rendered by advocates are provided under a contract of personal service, which is expressly excluded from the definition of “service” under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, complaints alleging deficiency in legal services are not maintainable before consumer fora. 

The High Court reproduced and relied upon the Supreme Court’s conclusions that the Consumer Protection Act was enacted to protect consumers from unfair trade and business practices and was never intended to include professional services rendered by advocates. The relationship between an advocate and client is unique and fiduciary in nature. Legal services constitute a contract of personal service and therefore fall outside the statutory definition of “service.” Consumer complaints against advocates for professional negligence or deficiency in service are legally not maintainable. 

The High Court also noted that the Supreme Court had expressly overruled the earlier view adopted by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had previously held that complaints against advocates could be entertained under consumer law. The apex court categorically declared that such an interpretation was legally incorrect. 

The Division Bench held that the complaint instituted by the petitioner against his advocate itself was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Since the District Commission, State Commission and the NCDRC had all rightly dismissed the proceedings, no interference was warranted under the High Court’s writ jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed without costs, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were ordered to stand closed. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Validity of S. 69 of CGST Act Reaffirmed: Supreme Court Arrest Powers Of GST Officer