Lawyers and Doctors: Liability for Wrong
Advice
Doctors and
Lawyers are two classes of people whose services are indispensible to social
life, and every person, at some point of time, depends on them for assistance. This
leads at to the question to what extent doctors and lawyers must be held liable
for any wrong opinion or advice tendered without any express malice. If every
bit of their advice were to be regarded as conclusive, it would lead to a
plethora of claims and cases against them, which in turn would contribute
adversely to the practice of these professions. For the same, the law affords
certain level of immunity to these professionals in respect of the correctness
of the advices rendered.
CBI, Hyderabad v Narayana Rao[i]
The CBI had
registered a case under Sections 120-B, 419, 420 of IPC against the Branch
manager and Asst. Manager of Vijaya Bank at Hyderabad for abusing their official
position and defrauding the bank by sanctioning housing loans to 22 borrowers
in violation of the Bank’s rules and guidelines and thereby causing wrongful
loss of Rs. 1.27 Crores to the Bank, and also included the Respondent (who was
a Panel Advocate of the Bank) in the Charge-sheet submitted to the Court. The
allegation against him is that he gave false legal opinion in respect of 10
housing loans. He subsequently filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code
before the High Court of AndhraPradesh at
Hyderabad for quashing of the criminal proceedings. The High Court granted the
same, and the CBI appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed
that the only allegation against him is that he submitted false legal opinion
about the genuineness of the properties in question. The Supreme Court upheld the HC decision, and the Respondent was absolved of the
liability. The case also laid dawn certain principles of immunity to lawyers
and doctors, which provide some advantage to professionals in respect of the
advice rendered to clients in good faith.
The Decision of the Court
The Court
stated that “A lawyer does not tell his
client that he shall win the case in all circumstances. Likewise a physician
would not assure the patient of full recovery in every case. A surgeon cannot
and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be
beneficial, much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated on. The
only assurance which such a professional can give or can be given by
implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of
profession which he is practising and while undertaking the performance of the
task entrusted to him, he would be exercising his skill with reasonable
competence.”
Under these
circumstances, the Court went on to state that “ A professional may be held
liable for negligence on one of the two findings, viz., either he was not
possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he
did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which
he did possess.”
The Court
elaborated that “merely because his
opinion may not be acceptable, he cannot be mulcted with the criminal
prosecution, particularly, in the absence of tangible evidence that he
associated with other conspirators.”
However, the
Court also pointed out that a lawyer owes an “unremitting loyalty” to the
interests of the client and it is the lawyer’s responsibility to act in a
manner that would best advance the interest of the client.
No comments:
Post a Comment