Delhi court dismisses suit accusing lawyer of deficiency in service

A Delhi court recently dismissed a suit accusing the Supreme Court lawyer TV George of professional negligence, conflict of interest and deficiency in service in representing a client in a medical negligence case against Tata Steel, which runs Tata Main Hospital (TMH) in Jamshedpur..Additional Senior Civil Judge Anuradha Jindal also rejected the plea for recovery of the legal fee of ₹97,500 along with an interest of 18 percent per annum. The plaintiff Shishir Chand had also sought compensation and litigation costs from George, an Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court.George had represented Chand in the medical negligence case at the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). However, he had been discharged by Chand before the completion of the case. Even then, Chand filed a suit against him in 2021. Judge Jindal in the judgment dated March 7 ruled that dissatisfaction alone, without concrete evidence of professional misconduct or gross negligence, does not constitute a valid cause of action..Dissatisfaction with legal strategy, no matter how strongly felt, does not give rise to a claim for harassment, particularly when Chand had the autonomy to seek alternative counsel, it added.“No evidence has been presented to indicate that the defendant [George] engaged in any conduct intended to cause distress or inconvenience to the plaintiff [Chand]. Legal representation inherently involves strategic decision-making, and an advocate’s approach may not always align with the expectations of a client. However, such differences do not amount to harassment or mental agony in the legal sense. The plaintiff has failed to establish any fraudulent misrepresentation, coercion, or deliberate misconduct on the part of the defendant that would warrant compensation,” the Court opined..The younger brother of Chand had died in 2011 soon after getting treatment for chest pain at the TMH’s Emergency Ward. He blamed the hospital for discharging his brother without due care and accused it of employing a fake doctor. The consumer case against the hospital and the doctor was filed in 2013.In the suit against George, the Court found that George had duly performed his professional obligations as a legal representative in the case filed before NCDRC.“Furthermore, he advised the plaintiff on legal strategy, including the risks of making unverified allegations in a legal forum. The defendant’s involvement extended over several years until he was discharged by the plaintiff in 2016, at which point the plaintiff began appearing in person,” it said..The Court rejected the argument that George should have raised the issue of the doctor’s alleged fake MBBS degree. It opined that the lawyer’s role was to act within the framework of legally admissible evidence and ethical practice.“The decision to refrain from making such an allegation without conclusive proof was a professional judgment, which cannot retrospectively be labeled as negligence. Judicial records indicate that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court later adjudicated the same issue. Therefore, even if the defendant had raised this contention at the NCDRC, the final outcome would not have been altered,” it added. The Court held that Chand had failed to provide any direct evidence to establish that George had been compromised or influenced by Tata Group. It also opined that the assertion of George having represented Tata Group entities in other matters before the NCDRC does not by itself establish a conflict of interest. “There is no evidence to suggest that the defendant had any pre-existing engagement with Tata Steel (to the prejudice of the plaintiff), the entity against whom the consumer complaint was filed,” it said. .The Court observed that in a civil litigation, the refund of professional fees can only be granted if it is proven that the professional failed in their duty, acted fraudulently or displayed gross incompetence.“The plaintiff has failed to establish any of these conditions. Legal representation involves strategic decisions, and merely because a litigant is dissatisfied with the outcome of a case does not entitle them to a refund of fees. The defendant’s professional decisions, including his reluctance to make allegations without irrefutable proof, cannot be equated with negligence,” the Court said while dismissing the suit..[Read Judgment]