CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW SEM 05 – SEM EXAM NOTES

MODULE 4 NOTES:
MODULE IV: DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE

TOPICS: Service - Deficiency in Service – Service Liability – E-Commerce - Professional and

Public Utility Services– Government Services, Medical Services, Lawyers Services, Educational
Services, Commercial Services, Insurance, Electricity, Gas, etc.

TOPIC 1: SERVICE, DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE, PROFESSIONAL & PUBLIC

UTILITY SERVICES, GOVERNMENT SERVICE, INSURANCE, GAS, ELECTRICITY,
E-COMMERCE & TELECOM SECTOR
S 2(42) – Service
“Service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and
includes, but is 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, housing construction, entertainment, amusement, or the purveying of news or
other information.
It does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal
service.
Service may be of any description and pertain to any sector if it satisfies the following criteria:
1. Service is made available to the potential users, i.e., service not only to the actual users
but also to those who are capable of using it.
2. It should not be free of charge, e.g., the medical service rendered free of charge in
government hospitals is not a service under the Act.
3. It should not be under a contract of personal service.
Free of Charge
 IMA v. V.P Shanta: In the case of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shanta, the
Supreme Court held that medical services, even if provided free of charge, fall within the
ambit of ‘service’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This means that medical
professionals, including doctors and hospitals, can be held accountable for any
negligence or deficiency in their services, regardless of whether a fee is charged.
 Kishore Lal v. ESI Corporation: In the case of Kishore Lal vs. Chairman, Employees’
State Insurance Corporation, the Supreme Court held that medical services provided by
the ESI Corporation, even if free of charge, fall within the ambit of ‘service’ under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This means that the ESI Corporation and its medical
professionals can be held accountable for any negligence or deficiency in the services
provided.
Contract of Personal Service
Service under the Consumer Protection Act is a regular commercial transaction. Thus, the
services rendered under the contract of personal service are specifically excluded from the
definition. The expression ‘contract of personal service’ means – a contract to render service in a
private capacity to an individual.
For example, where a servant enters into an agreement with a master for employment, or where a
landlord agrees to supply water to his tenant, these are the contracts of personal service.
The idea is that under a personal service relationship, a person can discontinue the service at any
time according to his will, and need not approach the Consumer Forum to complain about
deficiency in service.
In the case of ‘contract of personal service’, the service seeker can order or require what is to be
done and how it should be done.
Like a master can tell his servant to bring goods from a particular place. But in a ‘contract for
personal service’, the service seeker can tell only what is to be done. How the work will be done
is at the wish of the performer.
Like when a person gives a suit to the tailor for stitching, he does not tell him which method he
should use to stitch it.

2(11) “Deficiency”
“Deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature,
and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time
being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or
otherwise in relation to any service and includes—
(i) Any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury
to the consumer; and
(ii) Deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.
Deficiency in Public Utility Services
1. Government Services
 Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K Gupta: The Lucknow Development
Authority (LDA) had allotted a flat to M.K. Gupta, but there was a significant delay in
construction and delivery. The Supreme Court held that the LDA, as a public authority
providing housing services, was subject to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986. The Court held the LDA liable for deficiency in service due to the delay in
construction and delivery of the flat. The Court directed the LDA to pay compensation to
M.K. Gupta for the mental agony and harassment caused by the delay.
  Brig. KG. Kuthiala v. Army Welfare Housing Organisation: Since the Army Welfare
Housing Organisation is engaged in the systematic activity of construction of houses/flats
for the benefit of members for consideration, a complaining member would be a
consumer with respect to any defect in services rendered by the organization.
 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Faridabad v. ShivKumar Joshi: The
Supreme Court held that members of the Provident Fund Scheme are considered
‘consumers’ under the Consumer Protection Act.
 B.L Sood v. Delhi Transport Corporation: The Court held that rude and rough behavior
by a public servant, such as a conductor or driver, constitutes a deficiency in service. The
Court affirmed the rights of consumers to receive respectful and courteous service, even
from public service providers.
 Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh: The Supreme Court held that
public authorities, such as the Ghaziabad Development Authority, can be considered
service providers under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court ruled that delays in
project delivery and non-fulfillment of promises by public authorities constitute a
deficiency in service.
 S.P Goel v. Collector of Stamps, Delhi: The appellant, S.P. Goel, had submitted a will
for registration but faced significant delays due to the Collector’s categorization of the
document as a “Deed of Conveyance” requiring additional stamp duty. This led to a
dispute over the nature of the document and the subsequent delay in registration. The
Court held that the Collector of Stamps, in performing the duties assigned under the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Registration Act, 1908, is primarily discharging statutory
and quasi-judicial functions. These functions are not considered ‘services’ within the
meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
 Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation v. Ashok Iron Works: This landmark
judgment expanded the scope of the Consumer Protection Act to include commercial
entities, such as companies and corporations. The Court reasoned that the term “person”
in the Act is not limited to natural persons but also includes legal entities like
corporations.
 Jagmittar Singh v. Director of Health Services, Haryana: In this case, Dr. Jagmittar
Sain Bhagat, who retired in 1985, claimed unpaid retiral benefits and unfair penal rent
deductions. The Supreme Court decided that government servants are not “consumers”
under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and can’t seek redressal for retiral benefits
through consumer forums. The matter was sent back to the District Forum to decide its
maintainability.

Railways
  Mrs. Kanthimathi v. Government of India: Mrs. Kanthimathi and her husband were
traveling in a reserved train compartment when unauthorized individuals entered and
snatched Mrs. Kanthimathi’s gold chain. The complainants alleged that the railway
authorities failed to provide any assistance during the incident. The District Forum
awarded Rs. 15,840/- for the value of the gold chain, Rs. 25/- for sleeping berth charges,
and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship. The Southern Railway
appealed against the decision, but the State Commission upheld the District Forum’s
order. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirmed the lower courts’
decisions, emphasizing the railway’s responsibility to ensure passenger safety.
 South Eastern Railway v. Yashwant Tiwari: Mr. Yeshwant Tiwari and his family were
traveling in a reserved compartment of a train when they found that the water pipe in the
toilet was broken, leaving them without water during their journey in May. The National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirmed the lower courts’ decisions,
emphasizing the railway’s responsibility to provide essential facilities to passengers.
 Chairman Railway Board v. PSRK Timaji Rao: Mr. Thimaji Rao and other passengers
found that the sleeper coaches of express trains lacked number plates, causing
inconvenience and confusion during their journey. The District Forum directed the
railway authorities to provide number plates to the sleeper coaches of all express trains
within 30 days.
Airlines
 Jeyaraj Victor v. Interglobe Aviation: The complainants, who were employees of St.
John’s Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, booked 18 tickets with IndiGo for a trip
to Nepal. At Delhi International Airport, nine passengers were denied boarding passes
because they did not possess a passport or voter ID, despite having other valid photo IDs.
The Commission ruled in favor of the complainants, directing IndiGo to refund the
airfare and compensate for the advance expenses. The compensation amount was
significantly reduced from the claimed amount.
 Indian Airlines v. Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay: Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay and his wife,
Smt. Asha Upadhyay, were scheduled to travel from Lucknow to Delhi. Their flight was
delayed, departing at 6:50 p.m. instead of the scheduled 2:00 p.m. The court allowed the
appeal by Indian Airlines, setting aside the State Commission’s order, as no proof of
negligence on part of Indian Airlines was found.
 Managing Director Air India v. B Vijaya Kumar: Charging of excess price after
booking tickets was found to be a deficiency in service.
 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Abdul Majid: Misconduct of Staff appointed by Air
Corporation was found to be deficient service.
Insurance
  Maina Devi Bairalia v. LIC: In the case of Smt. Maina Devi Bairalia vs. Life Insurance
Corporation of India (LIC), Shri Pawan Kumar Bairalia took out a life insurance policy
and passed away before paying the second yearly premium. Smt. Maina Devi Bairalia,
the nominee, faced significant delays from LIC in settling the claim. The National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruled in her favor, criticizing LIC
for the negligence and delay, and directed them to settle the claim and compensate for the
mental agony caused.
 Harshad J Shah v. LIC: In the case of Harshad J. Shah & Anr. Vs. Life Insurance
Corporation of India (LIC), Harshad J. Shah handed a premium cheque to an LIC agent,
who deposited it late. Shah died in an accident the day before the cheque was deposited.
The Supreme Court upheld that the payment to the agent should be considered as
payment to LIC, so the policies remained valid. LIC was directed to settle the claim.
 United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. M/S Mohan Lai and Sons: The case
involved an insured who could not be allowed to take unfair advantage of a typing
mistake in the insurance policy regarding the amount insured.
 Shai Sabbari Syndicates v. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Ltd.: The conduct of
the insurance company in initially offering to settle two claims and subsequently agreeing
to have a re-survey done and finally agreeing to settle the claims at reduced payment
exhibited deficiency of service in settling the claims. Even when the release of the
amount was asked, the same was not paid. This amounted to gross deficiency in service.
Banking
 Special Machines v. Punjab National Bank (1989): Mere failure to provide nursing and
financing facilities to a small-scale industry which consequently became sick was not
held to be a deficiency in service.
 State Bank of India and Others v. Sunderlal Kela: Non-grant of loan by a bank: The
Branch Manager's refusal to grant a loan to a consumer was found to be a deficiency in
service.
 Govind Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager, United Commercial Bank &
Another: The Commission ruled in favor of Govind Electrodes Pvt. Ltd., criticizing the
bank for its refusal to enhance the credit limit and for harassing the company. The
Commission directed the bank to settle the claims and compensate the company for the
inconvenience caused.
 Arun Sameer Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Manager, State Bank of India: The
dishonoring of a cheque due to stop payment instructions was considered a deficiency in
service.
Electricity
 Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Birakishore Raut: A agreed to supply water to B
for irrigation of crops. He failed to do so because of a power breakdown due to the
 burning of a transformer. As a result, the crop was damaged. B sued A for providing
deficient service. The National Commission held that it was the duty of A to get the
transformer repaired immediately. Since he was negligent in doing so, he was held liable
for the deficiency in service.
 Dalit Singh v. PEB: The case involved excess billing by the electricity board.
 MSEB v. Swastik Industries: The case of issuing bills after disconnection was found to
be a deficiency in service.
 G M Manjarekar v. MSEB: The case involved issuing bills without checking meters,
which was considered a deficiency in service.
 Asst. Engineer, Secunderabad v. Padmanabha Rao: Disconnection of electricity
without notice was deemed deficient service.
Transport/Courier
 Express Goods Service v. Standard Textile Mills: Misappropriation of consignments in
road services was ruled to be a deficiency in service.
 PSN Rao v. Venice Services: The damage caused by a courier company was considered
deficient service.
 Prosol Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. Transport Corporation of India: Delay by courier
services was found to be a deficiency in service.
E-COMMERCE & TELECOM SECTOR
E-commerce
 E-commerce is a new concept that has been included in the Consumer Protection Act,
2019 (CPA, 2019). E-commerce refers to the buying or selling of goods or services
through digital media or electronic service providers. As the services provided by e-
commerce entities may not always meet the quality standards assured by them, protection
for consumers is essential.
 The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 were passed to align with the
provisions of CPA, 2019, and facilitate the online services provided. These rules extend
to e-commerce entities that may not have a company registered in India but offer services
within India.
 Mandatory Disclosures: E-commerce entities must disclose certain information such as
the name of the entity, its address, the address of the website, and contact details like
email address and phone numbers.
 Grievance Redressal System: Every e-commerce entity is required to have a grievance
redressal system in place. A grievance redressal officer must be appointed to
acknowledge complaints within 2 days and resolve them within 30 days. Consumers must
give explicit consent for availing services; it cannot be taken automatically. Cancellation
 charges imposed by e-commerce entities should not exceed the amount incurred by them
due to the cancellation.
 Types of E-commerce Entities: E-commerce entities are categorized into two types:
1. E-commerce Inventory Entities: These directly provide services or sell products
to consumers.
2. E-commerce Marketplace Entities: These act as platforms for other e-commerce
service providers.
These rules operate in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Telecom Sector
 There have been various disputes under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA,
2019) with respect to whether telecom-related disputes could be adjudicated by consumer
forums. However, the Telecom Consumers Protection and Redressal of Grievances
Regulations, 2007 clarified that consumers can seek redressal for telecom grievances
under the Consumer Protection Act.
 Types of Disputes: Some of the common areas where consumer forums have been
invoked include issues like excessive billing by telephone carriers, administrative
problems (such as delays in processing applications for address changes or resolving
telephone line issues), broadband services, and fraudulent messages received by
consumers due to the default of telecom companies (e.g., Bharti Airtel).

Telecom Consumer Cases

 Not Receiving Bills – Request in Registered Post:
o Telecom District Manager v. Umesh Chandra Patnaik - This case involved the
non-receipt of bills, where the consumer had made a request for the bills to be
sent by registered post.
 Disconnection Without Information:
o Smt. M Sabat v. Divisional Officers - In this case, the consumer faced
disconnection of service without prior information, which led to the filing of a
complaint.
 Delay in Rectifying Fault Even After Complaint:
o District Manager v. Lalit Kumar - This case involved a delay in rectifying a fault
in the telephone line even after a complaint was registered with the service
provider.
TOPIC 2: DEFICIENCY IN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, MEDICAL SERVICES,
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, LAWYER SERVICES
Deficiency in Professional Services
Deficiency in Medical Service
Medical Negligence
Baron Alderson:
An omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations that
ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable
man would not do.
Actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person
to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglect the
plaintiff has suffered injury to his person or property.
Ingredients of Medical Negligence:
 A legal duty to exercise due care towards the patient
 Duty must be owed by the medical professional
 Breach of duty by the medical professional
 Consequential injury and damage to the patient
History of Medical Negligence
Code of Hammurabi developed by Babylon’s King:
Doctor’s hands were cut off if the patient died during an operation.
Medical negligence-related provisions can be found in:
 Islamic Law
 Mosaic Law
 Charaka Samhita
 Sushruta Samhita
 Manusmriti
 Arthashastra
 Yajnavalkya’s Smriti
Kautilya’s Arthashastra:
The doctor is mandated to report to the state whenever he is called to treat a severely wounded
person or patients suffering from unwholesome food or drink.
Medical negligence was considered more of a crime than a civil wrong (tort).
Medical Negligence in Indian Law
1. Civil Law:
 Tort of Medical Negligence
 Contract Law
 Consumer Law
2. Criminal Law:
 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
 Professional Misconduct & Disciplinary Action
Tort of Medical Negligence
An act or omission which causes a breach of duty to take care by a medical professional and
thereby causes injury to a patient.
Ingredients:
1. A legal duty to exercise due care
2. Duty must be owed by the medical professional
3. Breach of duty
4. Breach resulted in injury to the patient
Bolam Test (Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee):
The standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. A
man need not possess the highest expert skill. It is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of
an ordinary competent man practicing that particular art.
In the case of a medical professional, negligence means failure to act in accordance with the
standards of reasonably competent medical men at the time. There may be one or more perfectly
proper standards, and if the doctor confirms with one of these proper standards, then he is not
negligent.
Bolitho Test (Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority, Lord Wilkinson):
Even though there exists a body of professional opinion sanctioning the defendant’s conduct, the
defendant can still be held negligent if the judge is not satisfied that the opinion is reasonable or
responsible.
Ultimately, the courts, and only the courts, are the arbiters of what constitutes reasonable care.
Doctors cannot be judges in their own cause.
Shift in Legal Approach:
Shift from Bolam’s accepted practice to expected practice.
Case Example:
Smt. Madhubala vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2005 (118) DLT 515)
 Three degrees of negligence:
1. Lata culpa – Gross neglect
2. Levis culpa – Ordinary neglect
3. Levissima culpa – Slight neglect
Every act of negligence by a doctor does not attract punishment. Slight neglect will not be
punishable, and ordinary neglect also usually is not. However, in most cases, the dividing line is
clear. The problem arises in cases where the line between them is thin.
Contract Law in Medical Practice
 An agreement between two or more parties enforceable by law is a contract.
 Offer and Acceptance + Consideration
 Express or Implied Agreement
 Doctor-Patient Relationship
 Consideration and Promise of Cure
 Breach of Contract – Remedy for Breach (Section 73 of Indian Contract Act, 1872)
Consumer Law in Medical Practice
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 & 2019
 Patient is a consumer (Section 2(1)(d) & Section 2(7))
 Medical service is a consumer service
 Deficiency in medical service
Deficiency in Service
Any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, or manner of
performance of medical service.
Forum:
 District Commission
 State Commission
 National Commission
Remedy:
  Compensation
IMA v. VP Santha
1. (i) Service rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner (except where the doctor
rendered service free of charge to every patient or under a contract of personal service),
by way of consultation, diagnosis, and treatment, both medical and surgical, would fall
within the ambit of ‘service’ as defined in section 2(1)(o).
2. (ii) Merely because medical practitioners belong to the medical profession and are subject
to the disciplinary control of the Medical Council of India and/or state Medical Councils
would not exclude the services rendered by them from the ambit of the Act.
3. (iii) A ‘contract of personal service’ was to be distinguished from a ‘contract for personal
services’ (as only contracts of personal service are expressly excluded from the definition
of service in section 2(1)(o)). In the absence of the relationship of master and servant
between the patient and the medical practitioner, the service rendered by a medical
practitioner to the patient would be under a ‘contract for personal services’ and thus, is
not outside section 2(1)(o).
4. (iv) The expression ‘contract of personal service’ in section 2(1)(o) of the Act could not
be confined to a contract for the employment of domestic servants only, and the
expression would include the employment of a medical officer for the purpose of
rendering medical service to the employer. However, such service would be outside the
purview of section 2(1)(o).
5. (v) Service rendered free of charge by a medical practitioner attached to a
hospital/nursing home or a medical officer employed in a hospital/nursing home where
such service was rendered free of charge to everybody would not be ‘service’ as defined
in section 2(1)(o). The payment of a token amount only for registration purposes at the
hospital/nursing home would not alter the position.
6. (vi) Similarly, service rendered at a non-Government hospital/nursing home where no
charge whatsoever was made from any person availing of the service and all patients
(rich and poor) were given free service was outside the purview of the expression
‘service.’ The payment of a token amount only for registration purposes at such a
hospital/nursing home would not alter the position.
7. (vii) Service rendered at a non-Government hospital/nursing home where charges were
required to be paid by all persons availing of such services fell within the purview of the
expression ‘service’ as defined in section 2(1)(o).
8. (viii) Service rendered at a non-Government hospital/nursing home where charges were
required to be paid by persons who were in a position to pay, and persons who could not
afford to pay were rendered service free of charge, would fall within ‘service’ as defined
in section 2(1)(o). Free service rendered to those who could not pay would also be
‘service,’ and the recipient a ‘consumer’ under the Act.
 9. (ix) Service rendered at a government hospital/health center/dispensary where no charge
whatsoever was made from any person availing of the services, and all patients (rich and
poor) were given free service, was outside the purview of the expression ‘service’ as
defined in section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration
purposes only at the hospital/nursing home would not alter the position.
10. (x) Service rendered by a medical practitioner or hospital/nursing home could not be
regarded as service rendered free of charge if the person availing of the service had taken
an insurance policy for medical care, where the charge for consultation, diagnosis, and
medical treatment were borne by the insurance company. It would fall within ‘services’ as
defined in section 2(1)(o).
11. (xi) Similarly, where, as a part of the condition of services, the employer bore the
expenses of medical treatment of an employee and his family members dependent on
him, the service rendered to such an employee and his family members by a medical
practitioner or a hospital/nursing home would constitute ‘service’ under the Act.
Case Law Examples:
1. Poonam Verma vs. Ashwin Patel & Ors.:
A doctor who has a qualification in Ayurvedic or Homeopathic medicine will be liable if
he prescribes Allopathic treatment which causes some harm.
2. State of Haryana and others vs. Raj Rani:
Failure of sterilization operation.
3. Dr. Sr. Louie and Anr. Vs. Smt. Kannolil Pathumma & Anr.:
Wrong claim of specialization.
4. Nihal Kaur vs. Director, P.G.I.M.S.R.:
Surgical scissor left remaining.
5. Vinitha Ashok v. Lakshmi Hospital:
Mistaken diagnosis.
6. Spring Meadow Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia:
Injection by unqualified nurse leading to vegetative state.
7. Kantha Motecha v. United Insurance Co.:
Maharashtra State commission held foetus is a consumer.
8. Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital:
Removal of kidney.
9. PGI Chandigarh v. Rispal Singh:
Transfusion of wrong/contaminated blood.
10. Madhavi v. Dr. Rajendra:
Failure to remove scissors.
 11. Dr. Sukhvander Singh v. Balram:
Refusal to release a dead body without payment is not a matter under the Consumer
Protection Act.
Defence in Medical Negligence:
1. Contributory Negligence:
o Failure to give the doctor accurate medical history.
o Failure to cooperate with the doctor in carrying out all reasonable and proper
instructions.
o Refusal to take the suggested treatment.
o Leaving the hospital against the doctor's advice.
o Failure to seek further medical assistance if symptoms persist.
o When a patient does not give a proper medical history, the doctor cannot be
blamed for the consequences.
2. Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur:
The thing speaks for itself.
Proof of Negligence:
1. Aparna Dutta v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd.:
Removal of uterus – Abdominal pack was left in the abdomen – Second operation
required.
2. Achutrao Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra:
Towel was left inside a woman’s peritoneal cavity, resulting in her death.
3. Jasbir Kaur v. State of Punjab:
NICU – Baby missing and found near bathroom.
Liability of Hospitals
 Vicarious Liability of Hospital
o Latin maxim: "Qui facit per alium facit per se" (He who acts through another acts
himself).
 Liable for not providing adequate medical facility:
o Paschim Bengal Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of Bengal: Not able to provide
proper sanitation facility.
 Mr. M Ramesh Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh:
o Liability of state in case of government hospitals.
Liability of State in Case of Government Hospitals
 Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 SCC 634
Criminal Law
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Section 336: Act endangering life or personal safety of others –
Imprisonment up to 3 months, or with fine up to Rs. 200.
 Section 337: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal liberty of others –
Imprisonment up to 6 months, or with fine up to Rs. 500.
 Section 338: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others –
Imprisonment up to 2 years or with fine up to Rs. 1000.
 Section 304-A: Causing death by negligence –
Imprisonment up to 2 years or with fine, or both.
Exceptions:
 Section 81: Causing injury in Good Faith
 Section 88: Consent
Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT
1. For conviction of a doctor for alleged criminal offence, the standard should be proof of
recklessness and deliberate wrongdoing.
2. To convict a doctor, the prosecution has to come out with a case of high degree of
negligence on the part of the doctor.
3. Mere lack of proper care, precaution, and attention, or inadvertence might create civil
liability but not a criminal one.
Protection to Doctors in Criminal Negligence Cases (Jacob Mathew’s case)
1. Prima facie case and evidence up to the satisfaction of Court in case of private
Complaint.
2. The investigating officer should obtain an opinion.
3. Should not be arrested in a routine manner.
4. Arrest should be the last resort for ensuring the doctor's presence.
Professional Misconduct
 The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
Conviction of any offence by a court of law – Guilty of professional misconduct.
  Professional (Conduct, Etiquette, and Ethics) Regulations, 2002
o Chapter 7: Misconduct
o Chapter 8: Punishment and Disciplinary Action
 Dentists Act, 1948
 Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947
o Code of Ethics for Nurses
LAWYER SERVICES
1. Srimathi v. UOI
In the case Srimathi and Others vs. Union of India (UOI), the Madras High Court
upheld the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
ruling that the services rendered by advocates fall within the scope of the Act.
2. K. Srivsatava Murthy v. K Vishnu –
Negligence of Lawyer.
3. Mrs. Subba Lakshmi v. S V Jayaraman –
Delay in filing case for probate of will.
4. Latest advancement:
Bar of Indian Lawyers v D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable
Diseases and Anr. 2024 SC 928
Held that advocates would not be covered under the ambit of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 (“CPA 1986”), as re-enacted by the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (“CPA
2019”). The duty of an advocate is not just limited to the client or their opponent, but they
also have a paramount duty to assist the court. The nobility and uniqueness of the
profession can be gauged by the fact that lawyers are considered intellectuals among the
elites and social activists among the downtrodden.
Educational Services
Whether education is a consumer service or not? This is a disputed decision. The following are
the activities in an educational field:
1. Advertising
2. Issuing prospectus
3. Preparing admission list
4. Conducting admission process
5. Conducting classes
6. Providing basic facilities and Infrastructure
 7. Conducting examination
8. Publication of result
9. Revaluation
10. Issuance of certificate and marklist
11. Issuance of T.C
12. Refund of fees and certificates
Case Examples:
1. Oza Nirav Kanubhai v. Centre Head Apple Industries
Oza Nirav Kanubhai, a student at Apple Computer Education in Rajkot, filed a complaint
against the institute and its faculty members for misbehavior, neglect, and prejudice. The
court held that in this particular case, this student can be held as a consumer under the
Consumer Act. The court didn’t answer directly whether education is a consumer service
or not.
2. N. Thaneja v. Calcutta District Court
The relationship between teacher and student is not a service. CPA is to protect
individuals from commercial players in the market.
3. University of Karnataka v. Poonam
Dispute regarding result publication – the court said conducting of examination,
publication of result, revaluation etc. are not commercial acts – therefore, the student is
not a consumer.
4. Gujarat Secondary Education Board v. Bharat Narotkar
University of Bombay v. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat
Activities in relation to examination cannot be considered as service.
5. Board of Education v. Mohitee Abdul Khader
Hall ticket had a printing mistake – didn’t allow the student to write exam – the court
held it is not a deficiency of service.
6. Bhupesh Khuranna v. Vishwa Buddha Parishad
False and misleading advertisement by dental college – the court held that this is a
deficiency in service and students are eligible for a refund as the college committed
fraud. Appeal given to the SC (Buddhist Mission Dental College v. Bhupesh Khuranna) –
The SC held that whenever a student is paying fees, it can be treated as consideration for
the service.
7. Jaikumar Mittal v. Brilliant Tutorials
Printed study materials circulated by coaching center had several printing mistakes –
Amounts to deficiency of service.
 8. Central Academy Education Society v. Gaurav Kumar
Complaint against teacher – not able to teach properly and is ignorant – Rajasthan State
Commission said that the teacher is not performing a service that can be equated with
commercial service therefore there is no deficiency of service.
9. R.C Sharma v. Jage Ram
Delay in publishing results – doesn’t amount to deficiency in service.
10. Bharat Solambi v. University of Bombay
The reason for the delay in publication of results matters. If the delay is within the control
of the institution, then it can be considered as deficiency. If it is beyond the control, it will
not amount to deficiency.
11. Vishal v. Engineering Learning Institute
When a student is paying examination fee, he can be treated as a consumer.
12. Anand Institute of International Studies v. Sally Jaggi
The court held non-providing of mentioned facilities would amount to deficiency in
service.
13. Maharshi Dayanand University v. Ruchika Jain
In this case, the court classified educational services into two categories: Statutory and
non-Statutory.
The court held that statutory educational services cannot be treated as service under the
CPA. For example, conducting of classes, exams, publication of results, etc. Non-
statutory educational services are consumer services.
In conclusion, there is no definite answer on whether education is a consumer service or
not.
TOPIC 3: SERVICE LIABILITY
Service Liability refers to the responsibility of service providers to ensure that their services
meet the promised quality, are free from defects, and cause no harm to the consumer. If the
service is deficient, unsafe, or causes damage, the service provider can be held liable. Under the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, consumers have the right to seek compensation for poor
services, including defective services, unfair trade practices, and misleading claims. Service
providers are obligated to deliver services in line with agreed standards, and failure to do so can
result in legal consequences.