PROFESSIONALS UNFAIR DEVIATING FROM ETHICAL VALUES

 Since the conception of Consumer Protection Act 1986,lobby of professionals had been at unrest and had left no stone unturned to skip away from their responsibility towards consumers and accountability before the consumer forums .The strongest argument extended in their favour had always been that they are professionals and not holding occupation .For the first time this stand was taken by the medical professionals in the case of V Shantha V Indian medical association in the year 1995 before the Hon’ble Supreme court of India wherein it was argued that they have their own body of Indian Medical Association who can take disciplinary action against them in case of any default on their part .But the Hon’ble Supreme court did not agree to their contention and found them service provider for medical services and also held that any negligence on their part shall be considered deficiency in services. It was also made clear that role of medical association is limited to their disciplinary action and penality imposed on the medical professional but it does not compensate the patient for their losses .

Number of cases came up again before the Apex court by professionals from all the fields and the Hon’ble Supreme court while deciding the matter against a medical professionals in a criminal case of Methew Jackob v State of Punjab 2005 CTJ 1085 SC, held  that

“ in law of negligence,professionals,such as lawers ,doctors, architects and others are included in the category of persons professing some special skill and professional may be held liable for negligence. ”

But the efforts continued and now  advocates also came ahead for saving their skin from their clients whom they sometimes ditch in the midway of their case causing him great loss. Similar argument was extended this time also that they have their own body named Bar council which can take care of the moral and ethical values which need to be preserved by the advocates.    

While National Commission had held in the matter of  D.K.Gandhi V M.Mathias  2007 CTJ 909 (CP)NCDRC  that services rendered by an advocate to his client in the course of litigation is to be covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, bench comprising Justice L.S Panta and Justce B Sudershan reddy stayed the ruling of Apex consumer commission holding that lawyers rendered legal assistance and not service to the client. Inspite of a good reasoned order pronounced by National Commission after detailed discussion  in the case of D K Gandhi v M Mathias  on the issue,  large number of advocate bodies ,bar of indian lawers,Delhi High Court bar association and Bar Council of India  approached the Hon’ble SC and got the order stayed .

Every profession is a noble profession if this could be the argument. Honorable Supreme court   had always been  of the opinion that every professional should adhere to the ethical values of their profession. The Supreme Court in a recent decision, by Justice Sathasivam in the matter of O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, had the occasion to examine the rules regarding Professional Conduct and etiquettes of advocates. The case in hand dealt with the contemptuous conduct of advocates before a magistrate, which resulted in suo moto initiation of contempt proceedings by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court where the court has brought an end   to the proceedings by accepting the unconditional apologies on behalf of the advocates. However, in doing so, the Supreme Court has spelled  out the principles regarding duties and conduct of advocates.

The role and status of lawyers at the beginning of Sovereign and Democratic India is accounted as extremely vital in deciding that the Nation's administration was to be governed by the Rule of Law. They were considered intellectuals amongst the elites of the country and social activists amongst the downtrodden. These include the names of galaxy of lawyers like Mahatma Gandhi, Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhulabhai Desai, C. Rajagopalachari, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, to name a few. The role of lawyers in the framing of the Constitution needs no special mention.

Hence an initiative taken by the Hon’ble Supreme court to elaborate the ethical and moral responsibility of an advocate  through judgement in the case of  O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana of case is a welcome step.

A pleasant development is observed in other fields of professionals also.In the profession of teaching,too much money minting practices and commercialization has crept in during the last two decades. Educational bodies have also taken a note of it and UGC has issued certain guidelines for the educational institutes .A public notice was issued by UGC on 23.4.2007 with the following instructions-

“The commission is of the view that  it would not be permissible for the institutions /universities, to retain  the school leaving certificate ,marksheets, caste certificate and other documents in original.”

It has been further directed that

“the entire fee collected from the student after a deduction of processing fee not more than Rs 1000/- shall be refunded to the student /candidate withdrawing from the programme .”

The similar notification has been issued by AICTE[All India council of technical education] on 19.4.2007 with the similar directions to the institutes/universities imparting technical education

    Recently insurance companies short listed some of the hospitals from their panel and objected to their prescribing a number of laboratory tests, and recommending costly treatments and operations which insurance companies thought could be avoided. Subsequently insurance companies stopped cashless facilities in some of these private hospitals. But there was sharp retaliation to such move, and courts through various judgments warned the insurance companies not to step into the shoe of doctors. Case of mediclaim in the matter of Shamim Khan V New India insurance company, Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressed Commission has shown insurance firms their place, directing that it is the doctor and not the insurer who can decide whether a case requires emergency medical attention or not

In view of the above observation made by the consumer commissions and in order to preserve ethical values in their profession, Insurance Regulatory and Development  Authority has issued a circular dt 20.9.2011 vide their reference no –IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 wherein certain guidelines have been issued for condoning the delay in claim intimation /documents submission with respect to all life insurance contracts and all non-life individual and group insurance contracts while settling the claims of the insurers.It is particularly pin-pointed that- “the current contractual obligation of the insured to intimate the company or submit the papers  within specific time is for the purpose of investigation,loss assessment etc but this condition should not prevent genuine claims when delay is due to unavoidable circumstances”.It further states that- “insurers decision to reject the claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds,be noted such limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute.” At the end INSURERS are advised “to incorporate additional wordings in the policy documents ,suitably enunciating insurer’s stand to condone delay on merits for delayed claims when delay is proved to be for reasons beyond the control.”

It is a good move towards building a nation with high morals and professional ethics which are certainly a good news for the consumers .

 

Dr Prem Lata

Member Consumer Forum, Delhi

www.consumerawakening.com

                                                            -

 

 

Previous

Next