A Delhi court has dismissed a suit filed against Supreme Court lawyer TV George, rejecting allegations of professional negligence, conflict of interest, and deficiency in legal service. The lawsuit, brought by Shishir Chand, sought the recovery of ₹97,500 in legal fees, along with 18% annual interest, as well as compensation and litigation costs. However, Additional Senior Civil Judge Anuradha Jindal ruled that dissatisfaction with legal strategy does not amount to professional misconduct or legal harassment.
Background of the Case
Shishir Chand had engaged TV George to represent him in a medical negligence case against Tata Main Hospital (TMH), which is operated by Tata Steel, at the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The case stemmed from the death of Chand’s younger brother in 2011, who had been treated for chest pain at TMH’s emergency ward but was later discharged. Chand alleged that his brother did not receive proper medical care and accused the hospital of employing a fake doctor. In 2013, he filed a consumer complaint against the hospital and the doctor.
However, Chand later became dissatisfied with George’s legal approach and discharged him in 2016, choosing to represent himself instead. Despite parting ways, Chand went on to file a suit against George in 2021, alleging negligence and claiming that the lawyer had failed to pursue critical aspects of the case, particularly the allegation regarding the doctor’s qualifications. He also accused George of having a conflict of interest due to previous representations of Tata Group entities in unrelated matters.
Court’s Observations and Verdict
The court ruled that mere dissatisfaction with an advocate’s legal strategy does not constitute a cause of action for harassment or negligence. Judge Anuradha Jindal emphasized that legal representation involves strategic decision-making, and a lawyer’s professional judgment may not always align with the expectations of a client. However, such differences in legal approach do not amount to misconduct, mental agony, or harassment in a legal sense.
“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 court observed.
Furthermore, the court noted that George had duly advised Chand on the risks of making unverified allegations in a legal forum and acted in accordance with legally admissible evidence and ethical legal practice. The court rejected the argument that George should have raised the issue of the doctor’s alleged fake MBBS degree, ruling that an advocate cannot be accused of negligence for choosing not to make claims without conclusive proof.
“The decision to refrain from making such an allegation without conclusive proof was a professional judgment, which cannot retrospectively be labeled as negligence,” the judge stated.
Conflict of Interest Allegation
Chand had also alleged that George had been compromised or influenced by Tata Group, suggesting that his previous representation of Tata entities before the NCDRC created a conflict of interest. However, the court dismissed this claim, stating that there was no evidence to indicate any pre-existing engagement between George and Tata Steel that could have prejudiced Chand’s case.
“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,” the court observed.
Rejection of Legal Fee Refund Claim
The court also rejected Chand’s demand for a refund of his legal fees, stating that refunds in civil litigation can only be granted if it is proven that the lawyer failed in their duty, acted fraudulently, or displayed gross incompetence. The judge ruled that none of these conditions were met in this case.
“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 ruled.
Conclusion
With these findings, the court dismissed the suit entirely, reaffirming that dissatisfaction with legal strategy alone does not justify claims of professional misconduct. The ruling serves as an important precedent for defining the scope of legal accountability and protecting lawyers from unfounded harassment suits based on client dissatisfaction.
