{"id":256900,"date":"2021-11-10T10:00:23","date_gmt":"2021-11-10T04:30:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=256900"},"modified":"2021-11-19T18:42:02","modified_gmt":"2021-11-19T13:12:02","slug":"healthcare-service","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/","title":{"rendered":"Consumer Protection | Whether service provided by doctors in lieu of fees is beyond purview of Consumer Protection Act  2019? Bom HC answers"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Bombay High Court: <\/strong>Holding that mere repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the 2019 Act, without anything more, would not result in the exclusion of \u2018health care\u2019 services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of service, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta CJ and G.S. Kulkarni, J., expressed that present matter is,<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>\u201c\u2026a thoroughly misconceived Public Interest Litigation and we have no doubt that it deserves outright dismissal.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the instant matter, the Trust sought declaration from this Court that services performed by healthcare service providers are not included within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as well as for mandamus directing all consumer fora within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court not to accept complaints filed under 2019 Act against healthcare service providers.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Further, the petitioning Trust submitted that the 2019 Act having been brought into force upon the repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, registration of complaints, which were filed against doctors, by the consumer fora in the State of Maharashtra was illegal and shall be declared as such.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In High Court\u2019s opinion, there was no material difference between the definition of service in Section 2(1)(o) of the 1986 Act and in Section 2(42) of the 2019 Act, except for inclusion of \u2018telecom\u2019 in Section 2(42) of the 2019 Act, the terms of the definition were identical.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another significant point noted by the Bench was that Section 2(1)(o) of the 1986 Act did not include services rendered by doctors within the term \u201cservice\u201d, but such definition was considered by the Supreme Court in its decision in <em>Indian Medical Association v. V. P. Shantha,<\/em> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/i0w4COkP\">(1995) 6 SCC 651<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In view of the above, High Court upheld the decision of NCDRC.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: #008080;\">Definition of \u201cservice\u201d in both the enactments (repealed and new) are more or less similar and what has been said of \u201cservice\u201d as defined in section 2(1)(o) of the 1986 Act would apply <em>ex proprio vigore<\/em> to the definition of the terms \u201cservice\u201d in Section 2(42) of the 2019 Act.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>\u00a0<\/strong>Hence, services rendered by doctors in lieu of fees\/charges therefor were not beyond the purview of the 2019 Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In view of the above petition was dismissed petitioning Trust was directed to pay Rs 50,000. [Medicos Legal Action Group v. Union of India, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/cHb6835D\"><b>2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3696<\/b><\/a>, decided on 25-10-2021]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Advocates before the Court:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Mr. Ashish S. Chavan a\/w Mr. Adithya Iye a\/w Mr. Kunal Shinde for petitioner.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Mr. Anil C. Singh, Addl. Solicitor General a\/w Mr. Aditya Thakkar a\/w Mr. D. P. Singh for respondent-UOI<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court: Holding that mere repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the 2019 Act, without anything more, would not <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":74381,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[14601,11241,34814,29955,29785,4501],"class_list":["post-256900","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-consumer","tag-consumer-protection","tag-doctors","tag-healthcare-services","tag-law","tag-services"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Consumer Protection | Whether service provided by doctors in lieu of fees is beyond purview of Consumer Protection Act 2019? Bom HC answers | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Holding that mere repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the 2019 Act, without anything more, would not result in the exclusion of \u2018health care\u2019 services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of service, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta CJ and G.S. Kulkarni, J., expressed that present matter is,\u201c\u2026a thoroughly misconceived Public Interest Litigation and we have no doubt that it deserves outright dismissal.\u201d\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Consumer Protection | Whether service provided by doctors in lieu of fees is beyond purview of Consumer Protection Act 2019? Bom HC answers\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Holding that mere repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the 2019 Act, without anything more, would not result in the exclusion of \u2018health care\u2019 services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of service, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta CJ and G.S. Kulkarni, J., expressed that present matter is,\u201c\u2026a thoroughly misconceived Public Interest Litigation and we have no doubt that it deserves outright dismissal.\u201d\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-11-10T04:30:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-11-19T13:12:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/\",\"name\":\"Consumer Protection | Whether service provided by doctors in lieu of fees is beyond purview of Consumer Protection Act 2019? Bom HC answers | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-11-10T04:30:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-11-19T13:12:02+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"Holding that mere repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the 2019 Act, without anything more, would not result in the exclusion of \u2018health care\u2019 services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of service, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta CJ and G.S. Kulkarni, J., expressed that present matter is,\u201c\u2026a thoroughly misconceived Public Interest Litigation and we have no doubt that it deserves outright dismissal.\u201d\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Consumer Protection | Whether service provided by doctors in lieu of fees is beyond purview of Consumer Protection Act 2019? Bom HC answers\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Consumer Protection | Whether service provided by doctors in lieu of fees is beyond purview of Consumer Protection Act 2019? Bom HC answers | SCC Times","description":"Holding that mere repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the 2019 Act, without anything more, would not result in the exclusion of \u2018health care\u2019 services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of service, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta CJ and G.S. Kulkarni, J., expressed that present matter is,\u201c\u2026a thoroughly misconceived Public Interest Litigation and we have no doubt that it deserves outright dismissal.\u201d","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Consumer Protection | Whether service provided by doctors in lieu of fees is beyond purview of Consumer Protection Act 2019? Bom HC answers","og_description":"Holding that mere repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the 2019 Act, without anything more, would not result in the exclusion of \u2018health care\u2019 services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of service, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta CJ and G.S. Kulkarni, J., expressed that present matter is,\u201c\u2026a thoroughly misconceived Public Interest Litigation and we have no doubt that it deserves outright dismissal.\u201d","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-11-10T04:30:23+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-11-19T13:12:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/","name":"Consumer Protection | Whether service provided by doctors in lieu of fees is beyond purview of Consumer Protection Act 2019? Bom HC answers | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","datePublished":"2021-11-10T04:30:23+00:00","dateModified":"2021-11-19T13:12:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"Holding that mere repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the 2019 Act, without anything more, would not result in the exclusion of \u2018health care\u2019 services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of service, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta CJ and G.S. Kulkarni, J., expressed that present matter is,\u201c\u2026a thoroughly misconceived Public Interest Litigation and we have no doubt that it deserves outright dismissal.\u201d","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","width":1331,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/healthcare-service\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Consumer Protection | Whether service provided by doctors in lieu of fees is beyond purview of Consumer Protection Act 2019? Bom HC answers"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":263163,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/","url_meta":{"origin":256900,"position":0},"title":"Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognisance of medical negligence complaints? Ker HC analyses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 5, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: N. Nagaresh, J., decided whether medical service would fall within the ambit of Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 unless of course the service is free of charge or is under a contract of personal service. Background Doctors practising Modern Medicine in Kannur filed the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":322099,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/14\/advocates-are-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-deficiency-of-services-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":256900,"position":1},"title":"Consumer Protection| Advocates not liable for deficiency of services; Professionals to be treated differently from persons carrying out business and trade: SC","author":"Apoorva","date":"May 14, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAny interpretation of the Preamble or the scheme of the Act for construing \u2018Profession\u2019 as \u2018Business\u2019 or \u2018Trade\u2019; or \u2018Professional\u2019 as \u2018service provider\u2019 would be extending the scope of the Act which was not intended, rather would have a counter productive effect\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Consumer protection Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Consumer-protection-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Consumer-protection-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Consumer-protection-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Consumer-protection-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":225367,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/10\/rajya-sabha-update-services-of-doctors-and-lawyers-under-consumer-protection-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":256900,"position":2},"title":"Rajya Sabha Update| Services of Doctors and Lawyers under Consumer Protection Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 10, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"As per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, \u201cservice\u201d means 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, telecom, boarding or lodging or both,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Parliament_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Parliament_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Parliament_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Parliament_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Parliament_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":325994,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/","url_meta":{"origin":256900,"position":3},"title":"Advocate Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act: A Critique of Supreme Court Judgment","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 8, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"by Baglekar Akash Kumar*","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Consumer Protection Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/shared-image-_1_.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/shared-image-_1_.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/shared-image-_1_.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/shared-image-_1_.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":378982,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/20\/sc-on-deposit-interest-commercial-purpose-under-consumer-protection-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":256900,"position":4},"title":"Interest earned on deposit by itself doesn\u2019t establish a \u2018commercial purpose\u2019 under Consumer Protection Act: Supreme Court","author":"Ritu","date":"March 20, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Consumer complaint not maintainable where dispute involves alleged fraudulent pledge of fixed deposit and requires determination of complex facts beyond summary consumer proceedings.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"commercial purpose under Consumer Protection Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/commercial-purpose-under-Consumer-Protection-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/commercial-purpose-under-Consumer-Protection-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/commercial-purpose-under-Consumer-Protection-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/commercial-purpose-under-Consumer-Protection-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214871,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/20\/hp-scdrc-no-bar-under-consumer-protection-act-prohibiting-filing-of-consumer-complaint-in-the-presence-of-an-alternative-remedy\/","url_meta":{"origin":256900,"position":5},"title":"HP SCDRC | No bar under Consumer Protection Act prohibiting filing of consumer complaint in the presence of an alternative remedy","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 20, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla: Coram of Justice P.S. Rana (President), Vijay Pal Khachi (Member) and Sunita Sharma (Member), dismissed the appeal filed by Bharti Airtel Ltd. against the order of the District Forum whereby Bharti Airtel was directed to pay punitive compensation to one of its\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/HP-STATE-CONSUMER-DISPUTES-COMMISSION.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/HP-STATE-CONSUMER-DISPUTES-COMMISSION.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/HP-STATE-CONSUMER-DISPUTES-COMMISSION.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/HP-STATE-CONSUMER-DISPUTES-COMMISSION.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/HP-STATE-CONSUMER-DISPUTES-COMMISSION.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256900","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=256900"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256900\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/74381"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256900"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256900"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256900"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}