Mumbai: Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, which had exempted lawyers from any professional liability for deficient services under a Consumer Protection (CP) Act, experts feel the need to urge the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to revisit the order, so as to restore the scope of the Act to avoid the harm caused to the consumer movement. Experts hold that the judgment is a blatantly one-sided order just to protect their own kith and kin.
Dr MS Kamath, general secretary of the Consumer Guidance Society of India (CGSI), while speaking on the issue said, “The Supreme Court has blatantly passed a one-sided order. It has protected his own kith and kin because they all breed together.”
Meanwhile, immediately after the order was passed, advocate Shirish Deshpande, chairman of Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, on May 24 addressed a plea to the CJI to revisit the order. Further, advocate Deshpande on May 27 addressed a letter to the secretary of the Department of Consumer Affairs with the same plea.
Both the letters were concerned with the recent Supreme Court judgment, which mentioned that there was nothing on record to suggest regarding the legislature if it even intended to include the professions or professionals within the purview of the CP Act. The court’s order had claimed that the very purpose of the Act was protection to consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices.
The letter also read that the judgment has the effect of dismissing all pending complaints against advocates as well as other professionals in various consumer commissions all over India relegating the complaints to unaffordable and time-consuming civil remedy, which is contrary to legislative intent and the spirit of the CP Act.
The letter has therefore asked the CJI to revisit the judgment and restore the scope of the Act, thus reversing the harm caused to the consumer movement.
Meanwhile, the letter addressed to the Department of Consumer Affairs said, “We honestly believe that the judgment will have serious repercussions and will set a wrong precedent. It is going to make advocates’ community not accountable to their clients, indifferent to the needs and expectation of their clients and careless in their day-to-day functioning.”
