The petitioner had alleged deficiency in service by the advocate in relation to a civil suit. (Image generated using AI)The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a plea alleging deficiency in providing legal services against an advocate, observing that a lawyer’s service is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act.A bench of Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Subhendu Samanta upheld orders of the Visakhapatnam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, all of which had rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner against his advocate.“We are of view that the complaint filed by the writ petitioner against the lawyer/advocate under the Consumer Protection Act was not maintainable. The same has rightly been dismissed,” the court held in its order dated June 24.It relied upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case where it had held that a complaint alleging deficiency in service against advocates practicing the legal profession would not be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Subhendu Samanta dismissed the plea.Allegations of deficiency in serviceThe petitioner had alleged deficiency in service by the advocate in relation to a civil suit handled on his behalf and had filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Commission at Visakhapatnam in 2014.The complaint was dismissed on merits in March 2022. His appeal before the State Commission and revision petition before the National Commission were also dismissed, following which he approached the High Court.The court noted that the counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy the court about the maintainability of the complaint against an advocate for alleged deficiency in rendering legal services under the Consumer Protection Act.Story continues below this adThe court reiterated the settled law that an advocate or a lawyer, in connection with the service rendered by him in the legal side, is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act.The court noted that the apex court had held that in India, the services of professionals, more particularly that of lawyers, have to be excluded from consumer protection law.The Supreme Court had also overruled the earlier view of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that complaints against lawyers for deficiency in service were maintainable.“In Bar of Indian Lawyers (case) the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had taken a view that the deficiency of, in service rendered by an advocate fell under the Consumer Protection Act and that the compliant was maintainable. The Hon‘ble Apex Court held that the view taken was not correct and set aside the order of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,” the high court noted.Story continues below this adObserving that the consumer complaint itself was not maintainable, the bench found no reason to interfere with the orders of the consumer fora.“No interference is required with all the three orders impugned in the writ petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed,” the court held.Supreme Court’s rulingIn 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that advocates cannot be held liable for deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act and opined that the top court’s 1995 ruling which held that doctors and other medical professionals can be held liable under the 1986 Act should be revisited.A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said the legislature never intended to bring the services rendered by lawyers under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, as re-enacted in 2019, overruling a 2007 judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which held that the services provided by lawyers are covered under section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.Story continues below this adReading out her judgment, Justice Trivedi clarified, “We have categorically said that we do not propose to say that they cannot be sued in the ordinary course of law for negligence but they are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act.”The bench held that the legal profession is sui generis (unique) and cannot be compared with any other profession. It was held that “as a necessary corollary, a complaint alleging deficiency in service against advocates practising legal profession would not be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act”.Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience. Expertise Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents. Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes: Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity. Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes: Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law. Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates. Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More Tags:Andhra Pradesh High Court