Are clients customers?

Mechanism is needed to address trust issues between professionals and clients

By Alok Tiwari

The Supreme Court sure provided a lot of solace to lawyers around the country this week by ruling that they are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). While the judgment would definitely warm the cockles of lawyers’ hearts, it would equally raise the hackles of doctors. Because the same court, almost 30 years ago, had brought the doctors under the purview of CPA. Dozens of doctors have since been sued in consumer forums across the country and some have been held as having offered deficiency in service.

The judgment of course makes it clear that lawyers, like any other citizen, can still be sued in civil or criminal courts for wrongdoing. However, from the common man’s point of view, going to consumer forum is by far the least complicated and least expensive way to get damages for being short-shrifted. One doesn’t even need to engage a lawyer. Though in recent times the forums have suffered the same problems as other courts and most people still hire a lawyer while approaching them, they are still relatively quicker and are seen to rule in favour of consumers more often. For an ordinary person, it would be a Herculean undertaking to try and win a judgment from a normal court, that too against a lawyer.

The court has sought to make a difference between professionals, particularly lawyers, and normal businesses and trades by accepting and advancing several arguments. It has said that lawyers, though paid for by and representing the clients, are also officers of the court. While it may not seem so in real life, theoretically, lawyers on both sides of a suit are supposed to aid the court discover the truth and thus rule on the side of justice. It has also said that lawyers for most part are bound by the instructions of their clients and thus not acting entirely on their judgment.

Doctors may be excused for thinking that the court has cleverly sought to protect its own. The court appears to have anticipated this criticism. It has suggested that in the light of current ruling it may be time to revisit the judgment (Indian Medical Association Vs VP Shanta, 1995) that brought doctors under CPA. In support of its view the court made some general observations about professionals. It said that professionals need to have highly specialized knowledge in some branch of learning and their work is more mental than physical. They also often do not have all circumstances under their control and hence cannot be expected to guarantee a particular outcome. SC has recommended that the 1995 judgment on doctors be referred to a larger bench for review.

There is a lot of merit in where the court is going with this. Treating professionals at par with other businesses would indeed expose them to all manner of untenable claims. Can, for instance, an investment advisor be sued for generating less return on client’s investment than other professionals? Would that be deficiency in service? Can CAs be held responsible for not properly shielding a person trying to exploit a tax loophole? And what about my own profession, the media? We like to call ourselves professionals. Though we do not engage with readers in quite the same way as lawyers with their clients, could we be sued by readers for not researching a story diligently enough. Can news organizations be held responsible for not presenting all sides of an issue in a fair manner? The list can go on but you get the drift. So professionals who offer advice, guidance, or even treatment do need a certain degree of protection so they can act freely.

But where does that leave the clients? It would appear that they have been thrown under the bus. Getting mistreated by professionals is not unheard of. Lawyers have been known to ignore the best interest of their clients and indulge in practices that can best be described as shady. So have doctors and other professionals. CPA was not a panacea for them. It has hardly ended up protecting citizens against rapacious businesses even in cases where status of consumer was never in doubt. Indians are not very litigious, thanks to poor experience of approaching any forum for justice. But for those willing to bear some trouble it was an option to at least cause some discomfort to sellers of goods and services.

Now that option will remain confined to only regular businesses. And even they might use the SC judgment to seek protection. After all, no business operates in an environment that it controls fully. It can always ascribe any alleged deficiency in service to some element outside its control. Having an option to sue in regular courts under normal civil or criminal laws is only a theoretical one for most people given the cost, time, and complications involved.

While clients may not be customers in strictest sense, they too deserve some protection against deliberate malpractices by professionals, especially where there is one-to-one dealing between the two. The client approaches a professional, whether to get legal advice or medical treatment, with a degree of trust that the professional will give their best shot to the issue. In cases where this trust has been demonstrably and willfully broken, a quick, inexpensive, and simple grievance redressal mechanism should exist.

Bodies representing all professions spend a considerable time and effort to protect their members’ interest. This is perfectly fine. They should also spend some of the same in ensuring that highest standards of integrity are maintained by their own and individuals who do not are held accountable. If they provide an easy and enforceable option, the legislature and judiciary will not need to step in with