In a significant ruling, a Delhi court has dismissed a suit filed by Shishir Chand against his former legal counsel, Advocate T.V. George, for alleged professional negligence and deficiency of service. The court ruled that “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”.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a consumer complaint filed by the plaintiff, Shishir Chand, concerning the alleged wrongful death of his younger brother, Vishal Chand, due to medical negligence at Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur. The plaintiff engaged Advocate T.V. George in 2013 to pursue litigation against Tata Steel and its employed doctor, whose qualifications were later challenged.
Advocate George, a seasoned Supreme Court lawyer specializing in medical negligence cases, was recommended to the plaintiff by Dr. Kunal Saha, a well-known figure in medico-legal activism. The legal engagement involved drafting and filing a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
However, tensions arose between the plaintiff and his counsel when the former insisted on incorporating allegations of fraudulent medical qualifications against the doctor in the consumer case. Advocate George advised caution, arguing that such claims required conclusive proof before being raised in court. Dissatisfied with his lawyer’s approach, the plaintiff discharged him in 2016 and took over the case himself.
The Lawsuit Against the Advocate
In 2021, nearly eight years after first engaging George, Chand filed a suit seeking a refund of legal fees amounting to ₹97,500, along with compensation for alleged harassment and deficiency in service. Chand claimed that his former lawyer had been influenced by Tata Steel to deliberately weaken the case and failed to raise critical legal arguments.
In his defense, George denied all allegations and countered that the plaintiff was attempting to “attribute legal setbacks to the advocate’s strategy rather than any actual deficiency”. He further submitted that the decision not to challenge the doctor’s qualifications was a strategic one, as the matter had already been adjudicated in other courts, including the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The court framed several issues, including whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover fees, whether there was professional negligence, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Limitation Period: The court noted that a suit for recovery based on a contract must be filed within three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. Since the plaintiff terminated George’s services in 2016, the limitation period expired in 2019, making the 2021 suit time-barred.
Professional Negligence: The court found no evidence of professional misconduct or deficiency in service. It held that “an advocate’s professional decisions, including reluctance to make allegations without irrefutable proof, cannot be equated with negligence”.
No Refund for Legal Fees: The court ruled that legal fees are paid for services rendered, not for guaranteed results. Since George had performed all necessary legal work, the plaintiff was not entitled to a refund.
No Compensation for Mental Agony: The plaintiff also sought ₹50,000 as compensation for harassment. The court rejected this claim, observing that dissatisfaction with legal strategy does not constitute harassment or mental agony.
Final Judgment
In her ruling, Additional Senior Civil Judge Anuradha Jindal held that “Courts have consistently held that professional decisions made by advocates in good faith do not provide grounds for legal action unless proven to be made with malafide intent, recklessness, or gross incompetence”.
Consequently, the court dismissed the suit in its entirety, stating that it lacked a valid cause of action and was time-barred. No costs were awarded.
