Delhi District Court
Shishir Chand vs T.V George on 7 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS AUNRADHA JINDAL, ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDGE SMALL CAUSE
COURT-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE, DISTRICT: SOUTH,
NEW DELHI
CS SCJ 908/21
SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE
CNR No. DLST03-001751-2021
Mr. SHISHIR CHAND
R/o D 71, First Floor, Chattarpur Enclave,
P.O. Chattarpur, P.S. Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110074.
Contact No. 9810919282
e-mail: [email protected]
.....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Mr. T.V. GEORGE
Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India
223, New Lawyers Chamber,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi-110001.
Contact No. 9811579561
e-mail: [email protected]
.....DEFENDANT
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.1/68
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
Date of institution : 11.11.2021
Date of reserving judgment : 09.01.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 07.03.2025
JUDGMENT
The Case
1. The present dispute arises from a prolonged legal battle
stemming from a case of alleged medical negligence,
corporate misconduct, and professional malpractice. At the
heart of the matter is the tragic demise of the plaintiff’s
younger brother, allegedly due to reckless treatment by an
unqualified doctor employed by Tata Steel at Jamshedpur.
Seeking justice, the plaintiff initiated multiple legal
proceedings across various judicial forums, including
criminal complaints, consumer litigation, and writ
petitions, in an attempt to establish liability and claim
compensation.
2. In January 2013, the plaintiff engaged the legal services of
Sh. T.V. George, an advocate practicing before the
Supreme Court and the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (NCDRC), to pursue a consumer
complaint against Tata Steel. The defendant, known for
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.2/68
handling high-profile medical negligence cases, was
recommended to the plaintiff by Dr. Kunal Saha, a well-
known litigant who had successfully won a record
compensation in a similar case. Based on the agreed terms,
the defendant undertook the responsibility of drafting the
consumer complaint, filing pleadings, representing the
plaintiff before the NCDRC etc.
3. As the case progressed, the plaintiff began questioning the
legitimacy of the doctor’s MBBS degree and insisted that
the defendant incorporate these allegations into the
consumer litigation. The defendant, however, advised
caution, emphasizing that such serious allegations required
conclusive proof before being raised in a judicial forum.
Unconvinced, the plaintiff proceeded to challenge the
doctor’s credentials before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
This led to multiple legal proceedings, culminating in a
2018 Hon’ble Supreme Court ruling. Despite the judicial
findings, the plaintiff continued to insist that the defendant
had acted negligently by failing to include these
allegations in the consumer complaint.
4. A turning point came in October 2016, when all pleadings
and evidence in the consumer case were completed. At this
stage, the plaintiff discharged the defendant from the case,
choosing to represent himself before the NCDRC. The
defendant’s role in the litigation effectively ended, yet the
plaintiff persisted in making accusations of professional
misconduct, alleging that the defendant had been
influenced by Tata Steel to sabotage the case. The plaintiff
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.3/68
also accused the defendant of failing to implead necessary
parties, not seeking interest on compensation, and
mishandling expert witness testimony.
5. By 2021, nearly eight years after engaging the defendant’s
services, the plaintiff filed the present suit, seeking a
refund of the legal fees paid to the defendant and alleging
professional negligence, conflict of interest, and deficiency
in service. The defendant, in response, not only denied all
allegations but also filed a counterclaim for defamation,
harassment, and reputational damage.
6. This case, therefore, extends far beyond a routine legal
dispute–it represents a collision between a client’s
expectations, an advocate’s ethical obligations, and the
procedural limitations of consumer litigation. It raises
fundamental questions about advocates’ professional
duties, judicial reliance on expert testimony, and the extent
to which litigants can hold legal professionals accountable
for case outcomes.
7. This Court has duly considered the final arguments
advanced by the parties. The Court has meticulously
examined the entire record, giving careful attention to the
pleadings, the evidence presented, and the submissions
made on behalf of the parties as well as written
submissions filed by the plaintiff. Each aspect of the case
has been analysed in light of the relevant facts and law,
ensuring that all material brought before the Court has
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.4/68
been fully reviewed and assessed in reaching a fair and
just decision.
The Plaint
8. The Plaintiff is a former army cadet of the prestigious
National Defense Academy, Khadakwasla, Pune, a Gold
Medalist and a post graduate in Economics. Since 2013,
the Plaintiff is volunteering as Head of Delhi Chapter of
People for Better Treatment, India (PBT, India), an NGO
helping victims of medical negligence, medical
malpractice and medical errors in top public and private
hospitals after a tragic incident in his family changed the
course of his life and the same is demonstrated below.
9. It is stated that the Plaintiff is working pro bono for PBT
India and has helped hundreds of victims fight for their
rights against top corporate and public hospitals both at
judicial and quasi-judicial forums like State Medical
Councils and National Medical Commission, erstwhile
MCI. The Plaintiff is filing this instant suit for recovery of
fees paid by him to the Defendant, an advocate for gross
dereliction of duty, sheer deficiency of service, utter
negligence in drafting a plaint and willful non-application
of legal mind both in drafting and representation of a
consumer case.
10.On 21.05.2011, Mr. Vishal Chand (hereafter the
‘deceased’), the Plaintiff’s younger brother, who was just
33 years old and an ICWA professional working as
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.5/68
Assistant Manager- Finance with Timken India Ltd, a US
MNC’s India subsidiary at Jamshedpur died at the hands of
a fake and unqualified doctor, a licensed quack and an
impersonator who was then employed as Senior Surgeon-
Casualty in the Emergency Ward of Tata Main Hospital
(TMH), Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.
11.As per the catena of evidences that have emerged in the
last six years, the impersonator was practicing medicine in
a senior position in a top corporate hospital with a fake
Intermediate mark sheet, a fake B.Sc. degree and a fake
MBBS degree. In due course, direct evidence emerged to
show that the impersonator was a beneficiary of medical
seat allotment scam under 15% CBSE quota of CBSE
AIPMT 1989 Exam
12.It is submitted that the CBSE quota scam of 1989 was
widely reported in mainstream newspapers and several
writ petitions were filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India and Hon’ble Delhi High Court being W.P (C) No.
1254 of 1989 titled “Vinay Shankar Vs DGHS & Oths”
and W.P No. 1166 of 1990 titled “Vivek Vs University of
Delhi & Oths” respectively.
13.On the intervening night of 20.05.2011 and 21.05.2011,
the deceased who was staying alone in Jamshedpur on
experiencing chest pain and uneasiness at an odd hour
(10.30 PM) had rushed to the Emergency Ward of TMH
with his driver where he was attended by the impersonator.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.6/68
14.It is stated that the impersonator for reasons best known to
him ignored six symptoms of an impending cardiac arrest
exhibited by the deceased including complaint of chest
pain and uneasiness, irregular and abnormal ECG with
several ischemic changes later opined by top doctors
including a Government Cardiologist and a former Head
of Department, AIIMS, New Delhi, elevated blood
pressure recorded as 150/100 mmHg, family history of
heart disease and mis-diagnosed the ailment as acidity.
15.A serious patient in need of critical care having reported to
the Emergency Ward of a biggest corporate hospital in
town at an odd hour was neither admitted nor referred to a
Cardiologist. The protocol mandating repeated ECGs
recordings and troponin test followed by a blood test to
measure level of cardiac enzyme in blood were ignored.
Further, no anticoagulant to delay a cardiac event was
administered.
16.The patient was discharged from the Emergency Ward and
he returned home late at night with a false sense of
security that he was suffering from some gastric problem.
However, the patient experienced chest pain again the next
day in the morning while working in his office viz Timken
India Ltd, Jamshedpur. The patient was immediately
rushed to another hospital by his colleague at Timken
India Ltd but before he could meet a doctor, the patient
suffered a severe heart attack, collapsed before the OPD
and died in ten minutes.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.7/68
17.The post mortem of the deceased confirmed death from
15. Myocardial Infarction (M.I) i.e., heart attack. The
impersonator who was then employed as Senior Surgeon-
Casualty in the Emergency Ward of TMH, Jamshedpur
was subsequently dismissed from the services of the
hospital.
18.In January 2013, the Plaintiff while planning to engage an
Advocate for the purpose of filing a Consumer Case at
Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (hereafter ‘NCDRC’) against Tata Steel and
its impersonator came in contact with the Defendant, an
Advocate on Record (A.O.R) of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India.
19.It is submitted that the services of the Defendant were
recommended to the Plaintiff by PBT India on account of
the fact that the Defendant had experience of litigating
medical negligence cases and was also the advocate of the
President of PBT India, Dr. Kunal Saha who had fought a
15 year long legal battle against a corporate hospital.
20.The Plaintiff on meeting the Defendant at his office
briefed him at length about the impersonator’s total
incompetence and inefficiency in the treatment of his
brother complete lack of knowledge of medical science
including inability to interpret a simple ECG, total absence
of care as evident by the approach of the impersonator
while dealing with a critical patient and most importantly,
denial of emergency services to a serious patient that
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.8/68
eventually prove to be the proximate cause for his death
from gross, reckless and criminal negligence in treatment.
21.A fee of Rs 40,000/- for drafting of the consumer
complaint and Rs 3,500/- per appearance of the Defendant
before the Hon’ble NCDRC in addition to other
administrative cost like fees for drafting of applications
and other overhead charges viz. court fee, photocopies etc.
was mutually agreed upon between the Plaintiff and the
Defendant.
22.On subsequent meetings, a preliminary draft of the
consumer complaint prepared by the Plaintiff of
approximately 70 pages having totality of facts along with
Expert Medical Opinion on affidavit of three eminent
doctors including a government cardiologist and a former
Head of Department of AIIMS, New Delhi concluding
gross negligence in treatment of the deceased was shared
with the Defendant. Vide email dated 22.03.2013, the
Defendant upon incorporating almost 90 percent of the
draft prepared by the Plaintiff in the style and format of a
Consumer Complaint filed before Hon’ble NCDRC along
with Expert Medical Opinions of eminent doctors
furnished by the Plaintiff sent the first draft of the
consumer complaint to the Plaintiff for consideration and
approval.
23.The Plaintiff being totally naïve and inexperienced with
legal matters approved the draft with minor changes and
without questioning the Defendant that he had not sought
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.9/68
interest on the compensation amount that was prayed to be
awarded as recompense for wrongful death of the
Plaintiff’s younger brother. The Plaintiff was also totally
oblivious to the fact that it a settled law for victims of
wrongful death to seek interest on compensation to be
calculated from the day of filing of a civil case/consumer
complaint until the date of realization of the compensation
amount.
24.Furthermore, the Memo of Parties drafted by the
Defendant suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties
as neither the employer of the deceased nor the state
medical council that had issued a fake license to the
impersonator was impleaded as parties in the consumer
complaint. Lastly, for reasons best known to the
Defendant, the hospital was impleaded as Opposite Party
No. 2 and the impersonator as Opposite Party No. 1
whereas as per settled law, the pecuniary liability of the
hospital vis a vis the doctor is in the ratio 80: 20.
25.On 04.04.2013, a Consumer Case bearing No. 83 of 2013
was filed by the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff and
his family members against the impersonator and the
General Manager, Medical Services, Tata Main Hospital,
Jamshedpur before Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi. As per
the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a
fee of Rs 40,000/- for drafting of the Consumer Complaint
was paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in two parts of
Rs 20,000/- each. The aforesaid payment of Rs 40,000/-
was paid by Plaintiff to Defendant from his YES Bank
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.10/68
Savings Bank Account, Chhatarpur Branch, New Delhi
vide Cheque No. 421926 dated 09/03/2013 and Cheque
No. 421927 dated 04/04/2013.
26.Vide Order dated 30/04/2013, the Hon’ble NCDRC issued
notices to both OP1 and OP2 returnable on 18/11/2013.
Subsequently before the next date of hearing, the OPs filed
their Written Statement and the Plaintiff the Rejoinder to
the Written Statement.
27.The pleadings of the case were complete by Order dated
18/11/2013 passed by Hon’ble NCDRC. However, it
would shock the conscience of this Hon’ble Court to know
that despite a lapse of eight years since completion of
pleadings of a consumer case, the consumer case of the
Plaintiff is yet to be decided by Hon’ble NCDRC.
28.It is submitted that in the meantime, the Plaintiff has
invoked all regal remedies including filing of several early
hearing applications before Hon’ble NCDRC, the first one
as early as May, 2017 and thereafter filing a Civil Appeal
before Hon’ble Supreme Court against the Hon’ble
NCDRC. The Plaintiff has reasons to believe that his
consumer case has been systematically delayed in a
planned and organized manner by forces acting at the
behest of a powerful and influential corporate and in large
measure on account of acts of omission and commission
committed by the Defendant.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.11/68
29.The Plaintiff also has reasons to believe that the Defendant
acting in concert with Opposite Parties mis-represented
and thereby prejudiced a case of ‘institutional murder’
simply by an act of willful and intentional non-application
of legal mind until his last appearance before Hon’ble
NCDRC in CC/83/2013 on 21.10.2016 on behalf of the
Plaintiff. Pertinent to state here is that Plaintiff pursuant to
Order dated 21.10.2016 passed by Hon’ble NCDRC in
CC/83/2013 had instructed the Defendant to surrender the
brief of his consumer case as the Plaintiff was totally
aggrieved and dissatisfied by the manner in which the
Defendant had represented his case before the Hon’ble
NCDRC in last four years (2013-2016).
30.Noteworthy to recall here is that the Defendant while
representing the Plaintiff and his family in their consumer
case before Hon’ble NCDRC for four years made no effort
by moving an appropriate application (IA) before the
Hon’ble Commission to ascertain the educational
qualification held by the impersonator.
31.On the contrary, the Defendant had repeatedly discouraged
the Plaintiff from bringing the issue of fake educational
qualification of the impersonator before the Hon’ble
NCDRC. Pertinent to state here is that as per Section 13(4)
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Hon’ble NCDRC
has the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under
CPC, while trying a suit in respect of the matters
enumerated in the said section, such as, (i) summoning and
enforcing the attendance of defendant and/or witness; (ii)
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.12/68
examining the witness on oath; (iii) discovery and
production of any document or other material object; (iv)
receiving evidence on affidavits; and (v) issuance of
commission for the examination of any witness, etc.
32.Even during the stage of interrogatories when both parties
had an opportunity to cross examine witnesses, the
Defendant did not pose a single question to the Opposite
Parties on the fake educational qualification held by the
impersonator and thereby gave undue relief to Opposite
Parties which they were not entitled on merits.
Furthermore, Defendant did not oppose a plea made by
Opposite Parties for another round of additional
interrogatories on the issue of medical negligence despite
strict instruction by the Plaintiff given to the Defendant
through email to oppose the same.
33.It is stated that another round of additional interrogatories
on points of negligence in treatment of the deceased was
totally unnecessary and immaterial in a case of res ipsa
loquitor where facts speak for themselves and gross
negligence in treatment was apparent on the face of the
record. The most improper, illogical and unjustified
conduct of the Defendant that sowed reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the Plaintiff took place during
the course of proceeding before Hon’ble NCDRC on
12.08.2016.
34.On the aforesaid date, the Hon’ble Bench at NCDRC upon
being apprised that one of the three eminent doctors, the
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.13/68
Orissa based government cardiologist, Dr. Dipak Ranjan
Das who had given his expert medical opinion in favor of
the Complainants has refused to be cross-examined by the
Opposite Parties by way of Interrogatories decided to
expunge the expert opinion of Dr. Dipak Ranjan Das from
the panel of expert opinions in CC/83/2013. The reason
that was cited by Dr. Dipak Ranjan Das for discontinuing
his support as an expert witness was that he has been
subjected to harassment by his employer, the State Govt.
of Orissa purportedly for helping the Plaintiff. Dr. Dipak
Ranjan Das had written an email dated 04.02.2015 to the
Plaintiff alleging harassment by his employer and the said
email was placed on record before Hon’ble NCDRC by
way of an interlocutory application which was initially
resisted by the Defendant.
35.The Hon’ble Bench at NCDRC then presided by a Judicial
Member during the course of hearing on 16.02.2016 had
taken the email written by Dr. Dipak Ranjan Das on record
and issued notice to him to file his reply to interrogatories
without fear or favour. In July 2016, the Judicial Member
hearing the case of the Plaintiff since the institution of the
case in April, 2013 was transferred from Court No. 5 to
Court No. 3 by Hon’ble NCDRC.
36.In the meantime, Dr. Dipak Ranjan Das did not comply to
the notice issued by Hon’ble NCDRC and the Hon’ble
Bench now presided by a Non-Judicial Member upon
hearing the Defendant passed an Order to expunge the
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.14/68
Expert Medical Opinion of the government cardiologist, a
key witness of the Complainants.
37.Noteworthy to mention here is that during the course of
oral exchange in the courtroom between the Hon’ble
Bench, the Defendant and the Plaintiff to ascertain if the
Complainants have any objection to the expunging of
expert opinion of a key witness, the Defendant for reasons
best known to him refrained from relying on the Hon’ble
Supreme Court Judgement passed in the landmark Dr.
Kunal Saha’s case, a case in which the Defendant was
himself the counsel for Dr. Kunal Saha and wherein the
Hon’ble apex court has authoritatively held that provisions
of the Evidence Act does not apply to consumer
proceedings and there is no need to cross-examine a
witness in a consumer court.
38.Needless to state, the expunging of expert opinion of a key
witness by the Hon’ble NCDRC had potential to impact
the final outcome of the case. Thereafter, vide Order
21.10.2016, the Hon’ble NCDRC directed both parties to
file short synopsis for final argument. The Defendant
quoted a price of Rs 5000/- for preparing the short
synopsis to which the Plaintiff readily agreed.
39.Thereupon, the Defendant prepared a short synopsis and
the same was sent vide email dated 11.01.2017 to the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff on perusing the same was surprised
to find that the Defendant had drafted a totally mechanical
and perfunctory synopsis of merely four pages and without
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.15/68
placing reliance on a single case law on medical
negligence. No statues were cited. There was no rebuttal of
contentions made by Opposite side. Moreover, the
synopsis was devoid of certain important facts which were
part of pleadings of the case.
40.The aforesaid synopsis prepared by the Defendant simply
stated the deceased’s age and income in addition to making
cross reference to expert medical opinions of the two
doctors and decision of MCI that was already on record
before the Hon’ble NCDRC. The Plaintiff after careful
perusal of the synopsis decided against filing the same for
Final Argument of his consumer case and was constrained
to engage his advocate at Hon’ble Delhi High Court to
prepare a better version of the same synopsis.
41.Thereafter, the Plaintiff being totally aggrieved and
dissatisfied by the professional misconduct and lack of
interest shown by the Defendant gave him an oral
instruction to discharge the brief until further notice or
advised otherwise. Until this stage, the Plaintiff had paid
an additional sum of Rs 57,500/- to the Defendant
including fee for appearances and fees for drafting of
applications over and above Rs 40,000/- paid for drafting
of consumer complaint.
42.The Plaintiff was also aggrieved by the fact that the
educational qualification of the impersonator could not be
ascertained despite four years of proceedings before
Hon’ble NCDRC and in spite of disclosure of
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.16/68
incriminating information under RTI Act, 2005 by MGM
Medical college, Jamshedpur, Ranchi University and Bihar
Medical Council. Further, the Plaintiff was aggrieved that
his consumer case has been vitiated by an irregularity
based on a misconception of the nature of the proceedings.
43.Thereafter, the Plaintiff took complete charge and control
of his consumer case and it is a matter of record that the
Plaintiff has been appearing as Complainant-in-Person
before Hon’ble NCDRC in his consumer case since
January, 2017. Thereafter, upon gaining experience and
confidence, the Plaintiff moved an interlocutory
application dated 04.03.2020 before Hon’ble NCDRC
seeking discharge of Defendant from his consumer case
No. 83 of 2013.
44.The aforesaid application of the Plaintiff seeking discharge
of the Defendant is pending disposal before Hon’ble
NCDRC due to suspension of physical hearings on
account of the coronavirus. Pertinent to state here is that
the Plaintiff during the last four years of proceedings
before Hon’ble NCDRC has been agitating a case of death
from quackery thereby rendering the previous four years
of proceedings totally irrelevant and immaterial as the
same was merely restricted to the issue of negligence in
treatment.
45.In its usual and expected style, the scam tainted MCI had
discontinued degree verification process of the
impersonator at a crucial stage when Bihar Medical
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.17/68
Council and Ranchi University in compliance to an Order
passed by MCI failed to produce a copy of the degree held
by the impersonator. The impersonator was then let off by
MCI with just a simple warning.
46.Insofar as the criminal case of the Plaintiff against General
Manager, Medical Services, Tata Steel and the
impersonator is concerned, the investigation in F.I.R No.
164/14 of Bistupur P.S, Jamshedpur u/s 304 and 304A IPC
was totally subverted and sabotaged by multiple rounds of
collusion and connivance of the accused with the state of
Jharkhand and the investigating agency viz Jamshedpur
Police under SSP, Jamshedpur and thereafter, the CB-CID
of Jharkhand Police.
47.A Criminal Writ Petition bearing No. 106 of 2019 filed by
the Plaintiff before Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
for transfer of investigation in F.I.R No. 164/14 of
Bistupur P.S to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and
prosecution of officers of Jharkhand Police is pending
disposal. Aggrieved by the proceedings before Hon’ble
NCDRC, MCI as well as biased and partisan role of
investigating agency, the Plaintiff was constrained to file a
Civil Writ Petition before Hon’ble Delhi High Court
against MCI, Bihar Medical Council, Ranchi University
and the impersonator assailing the MBBS degree held by
the impersonator.
48.In November 2016, a Civil Writ Petition bearing No.
10452 of 2016 was filed by the Plaintiff before Hon’ble
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.18/68
Delhi High Court but the same was subsequently
withdrawn after two hearings on technical grounds with
liberty to file afresh. Thereafter in January 2017, the
Plaintiff filed a modified version of his Civil Writ Petition
before Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the same was
numbered as W.P (C) 277 of 2017 followed by L.P.A No.
693 of 2017.
49.It was during proceedings before Hon’ble Delhi High
Court that a grave contradiction in the admission record of
the impersonator emerged that proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the MBBS admission of the impersonator was
fraudulent and deceitful. Until this stage the Plaintiff had
expended an additional amount of Rs two lakh (Rs
2,00,000/-) as fees paid to four legal counsels including
Senior Advocate, Mr. Anand Grover who represented him
before Hon’ble Delhi High Court in two Writ Petitions and
one L.P.A.
50.Subsequently in due course, another set of direct evidences
related to fake Intermediate mark sheet, fake B.Sc. degree
and fake M.B.B.S degree of the impersonator has emerged
and the entire catena of facts, documents and evidences
have been placed on record before Hon’ble NCDRC by the
Plaintiff by way of four interlocutory applications seeking
invalidation/cancellation of the MBBS degree held by the
impersonator.
51.Pertinent to state here is that Hon’ble Supreme Court vide
Order dated 08.02.2021 passed in Civil Appeal Diary No.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.19/68
1550/2021 preferred by the Plaintiff has directed Hon’ble
NCDRC to dispose the pending applications of the
Plaintiff before taking up Final Argument of the Consumer
Case 83 of 2013.
52.Noteworthy to also mention here is that Uttarakhand
Police acting on a criminal complaint dated 03.10.2020 of
the Plaintiff filed against the impersonator and his father,
Mr. Jitendra Nath Chhabra, a fake employee of UP Higher
Secondary Board, Allahabad has booked both the father-
son duo u/s 120 B, 420, 467, 468, 470 and 471 IPC for
resorting to illegal, unlawful and fraudulent means to
obtain a fake Intermediate mark sheet for the impersonator
in 1985.
53.Three more criminal complaints of the Plaintiff filed u/s
154 Cr.P.C against the impersonator is pending with Delhi
Police, Uttar Pradesh Police and Chhattisgarh Police for
offences punishable under Section 120B, 406, 420, 467,
468, 470 and 471 IPC. While the application for discharge
of the Defendant was pending before Hon’ble NCDRC, the
Plaintiff did some elementary research to ascertain conflict
of interest on part of the Defendant and was surprised to
find some startling facts.
54.The Defendant on 07.08.2013 i.e., just four months after
entering his appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff before
Hon’ble NCDRC also appeared as legal counsel for Tata
Motors Finance, Thane, Maharashtra before the same
Hon’ble Commission in a Revision Petition instituted in
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.20/68
2013. Thereafter in the same year on 18.11.2013,
Defendant had appeared for first time for TATA
Engineering and Locomotive Company (TELCO), another
Tata Group Company in a 2012 appeal filed before
Hon’ble NCDRC.
55.In the following year on 16.09.2014, the Defendant had
appeared for TATA Motor Finance, a Tata Group
company before Hon’ble NCDRC in a Revision Petition
instituted by a private party in 2013. Thereafter, on
14.01.2019, the Defendant had appeared for TATA Motor
Finance in yet another case filed before Hon’ble NCDRC,
a Revision Petition instituted by a private party in 2013.
56.On 09.07.2020, the Plaintiff sent a severance letter to the
Defendant through email formally dis-engaging him as a
counsel for his consumer case pending at Hon’ble
NCDRC. It is submitted that a questionnaire with nine
questions on the unprofessional conduct of the Defendant,
willful non-application of legal mind, deficiency of service
and utter negligence in managing the brief of the Plaintiff
is part and parcel of the severance letter.
57.The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had prejudiced the
consumer case by filing a defective plaint with glaring
errors, by not asking the right questions during
proceedings of the case, by not adopting a proper strategy
and not opposing the dilatory and diversionary tactics of
the opposite party because of which the case is still
lingering on resulting in loss of valuable time of the court
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.21/68
and the Plaintiff. That vide the same severance letter, the
Plaintiff also sought refund of full fees paid by him to the
Defendant and amounting to Rs 97,500/-. 84.
58.The Defendant vide email reply dated 10.07.2020 neither
answered the nine questions posed by the Plaintiff nor
showed any inclination to refund the fee amount. A brief
summary of allegations pointing to professional
misconduct on part of Defendant is as follows:
(i) Not seeking interest payment on compensation while
drafting the consumer complaint of the Complainants.
(ii)Not arraigning/impleading proper and necessary parties
in the consumer complaint in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(iii) Not framing questions of facts and questions of law
on the educational qualification held by Opposite Party
No. 1 during the stage of Interrogatories.
(iv) Not opposing/objecting to dilatory tactics adopted
by Opposite Parties to delay proceedings.
(v) Drafting a diluted version of synopsis for final
argument without placing reliance on a single case law
and other facts.
(vi) Not disclosing to the Plaintiff, the conflict of
interest on part of the Defendant and arising out of his
holding other briefs on part of Opposite Parties/ its
group companies.
59.This Court has the necessary territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the present suit. The Plaintiff has not filed any
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.22/68
other similar suit before this Hon’ble Court or any other
Court. The present suit is being filed within limitation. The
present suit is filed in a bona fide manner and is liable to
be allowed in the interest of justice. Under the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, it is most prayed that this Court
may graciously be pleased to:
a) Direct the Defendant to file a statement on affidavit
disclosing the number of cases pending and disposed in
various courts all over India in which a Tata Group
Company has engaged his services since 01.01.2013
until the date of filing of the statement.
b) Pass a decree in favor of the Plaintiff for recovery of
fees paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant during the
four-year period from March 2013 to January 2017 and
amounting to Rs 97,500/- along with interest @ 18%
per annum.
c) Pass a decree in favor of the Plaintiff for Pendilite and
future interest @18% from the date of filing of this
compliant till actual receipt of the amount.
d) Pass an Order in favor of the Plaintiff directing
Defendant to compensate the Plaintiff a lumpsum
amount of Rs 50,000/- for causing mental agony, pain,
harassment on account of deficiency of service and
duplication of efforts and for prejudicing and delaying
the consumer case of the complainant.
e) Pass an order in favour of the Plaintiff for litigation cost
amounting to Rs 20,000/-
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.23/68
f) Pass any order/orders which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the present case and in the interest of justice.
Written Statement on behalf of the Defendant
60.The present suit is not maintainable as it lacks a valid
cause of action. It is liable to be rejected for insufficient
court fees and is also barred by limitation.
61.The Plaintiff has suppressed material facts and has filed
this suit without disclosing the conclusive judicial findings
on the very issue he continues to litigate. In Writ Petition
(C) No. 277/2017 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
the Plaintiff challenged the genuineness of the MBBS
degree of the doctor (O.P. No. 1 before the NCDRC) who
treated his deceased brother. By Order dated August 30,
2017, the Hon’ble High Court held that the doctor’s degree
was genuine. This finding was upheld by the Division
Bench in LPA No. 693/2017 on April 26, 2018. The
Plaintiff’s Review Application No. 246/2018 was
dismissed on July 6, 2018. The Plaintiff then approached
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Diary No. 41865/2018, which was dismissed on
November 22, 2018. The issue regarding the doctor’s
qualifications has been conclusively settled at the highest
judicial level.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.24/68
62.Despite this, the Plaintiff has filed the present suit against
the Defendant, alleging that he deliberately failed to raise
the issue of the doctor’s credentials in the consumer
complaint before the NCDRC. This amounts to deliberate
suppression of facts and an abuse of the process of law.
The Plaintiff, despite adverse judicial findings, continues
to insist that the doctor’s degree is fake, and on this
misplaced basis, he has instituted this suit against the
Defendant.
63.Furthermore, the Plaintiff himself was advised by the
Defendant via email dated November 3, 2016, not to
pursue allegations against the doctor’s MBBS degree
unless there was conclusive proof of its falsity. The
Plaintiff chose to ignore this advice and now falsely claims
that the Defendant acted negligently by not raising this
issue before the NCDRC.
64.The Plaintiff also claims that the Defendant failed to
ensure that Dr. Dipak Ranjan Das, an expert witness
supporting the Plaintiff’s case before the NCDRC,
responded to interrogatories filed by the opposite parties.
Dr. Das initially provided an expert medical opinion but
later, citing alleged pressure from his employer, refused to
reply to the interrogatories. The Defendant exercised
professional judgment in advising the Plaintiff that
compelling an unwilling expert witness to testify could be
counterproductive. A single adverse statement from such a
witness could damage the Plaintiff’s case irreparably.
However, the Plaintiff disregarded this advice, discharged
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.25/68
the Defendant, and conducted the case himself. The
Plaintiff has not placed on record the interrogatory
responses given by Dr. Das, which would reveal their
impact on the case.
65.Another allegation pertains to the Defendant’s decision not
to oppose additional interrogatories filed by the opposite
parties. The Defendant exercised legal discretion in not
opposing them, considering that opposing such
applications would only waste multiple hearing dates on
procedural arguments rather than substantive issues. The
Plaintiff himself appeared before the NCDRC and stated
that he had no objection to the filing of additional
interrogatories, making his current allegation entirely
baseless.
66.The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant was
responsible for the delay in disposing of the consumer
complaint before the NCDRC. This claim is entirely false.
The Defendant diligently handled the case, completed
pleadings, filed necessary applications, and ensured the
case was ready for final hearing by October 21, 2016. At
this stage, the Plaintiff instructed the Defendant to
withdraw from the case and decided to handle the
proceedings himself. From that point onwards, the Plaintiff
has been solely responsible for the management of his
case. Even after the Defendant’s withdrawal, the Plaintiff
continued to seek his advice, which was given in good
faith. The Plaintiff, having represented himself for over six
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.26/68
years, cannot now shift the blame onto the Defendant for
delays that occurred under his own handling of the matter.
67.The Plaintiff has further alleged a conflict of interest,
claiming that the Defendant represented Tata Motors, Tata
Engineering & Locomotive Company, and Tata Motors
Finance before the NCDRC, while Tata Main Hospital,
Jamshedpur (O.P. No. 2 in the consumer complaint), is
part of the Tata Group. This allegation is legally and
factually baseless. Tata Main Hospital is owned by Tata
Steel Ltd., a separate legal entity. The Defendant has never
represented or advised Tata Main Hospital, Tata Steel Ltd.,
or any related entity in Consumer Complaint No. 83/2013.
Representing other Tata Group companies in unrelated
matters before the NCDRC does not amount to a conflict
of interest. The Plaintiff’s allegations are speculative,
unfounded, and aimed at tarnishing the Defendant’s
professional reputation.
68.The present suit is an abuse of the judicial process,
intended to harass the Defendant and damage his
professional credibility. The Defendant reserves the right
to file a counterclaim against the Plaintiff for harassment,
mental agony, wastage of time and resources, and damage
to professional reputation.
69.The Defendant, in light of the false and defamatory
allegations made by the Plaintiff, raises a counterclaim of
Rs. 5,00,000/- for the following reasons:
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.27/68
a) Defamation and Damage to Professional Reputation :
The Plaintiff has made baseless and malicious
allegations against the Defendant, which have caused
serious harm to his standing in the legal profession.
b) Harassment and Mental Agony: The Plaintiff’s repeated
accusations, despite the Defendant’s diligent
representation and legal prudence, have caused undue
stress.
c) Wastage of Time and Resources: The Defendant has
had to defend himself against false accusations,
diverting his time and effort from his professional
commitments.
d) Loss of Income and Professional Standing: The
Plaintiff’s attempt to tarnish the Defendant’s reputation
has resulted in professional and financial loss.
70.It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Court dismiss
the Plaintiff’s suit with exemplary costs and allow the
Defendant’s counterclaim for Rs. 5,00,000/- along with
litigation costs and interest.
Rejoinder to the written statement
71.The Plaintiff submits this rejoinder to refute the
contentions raised by the Defendant in his written
statement. The Defendant’s response is a deliberate
attempt to divert attention from the real issue, which is his
professional misconduct, negligence, and conflict of
interest while handling the Plaintiff’s consumer case
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.28/68
before NCDRC. Instead of addressing these core issues,
the Defendant has sought to mislead this Court by
introducing unrelated findings of the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the
qualifications of the accused doctor.
72.It is evident that the Defendant has suppressed material
facts while selectively placing on record orders that suit
his narrative. The Plaintiff has never sought a declaration
regarding the genuineness of the MBBS degree of the
accused doctor in Writ Petition (C) No. 277/2017. The
Defendant has misrepresented the findings of the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court, which merely recorded submissions
made by Ranchi University and the accused doctor without
conducting an independent verification. Crucially, the
Defendant has concealed orders dated 31.07.2017 and
04.08.2017, wherein the accused doctor was directed to
produce original documents to establish his qualifications.
The Defendant has also failed to mention that the issue of
the accused doctor’s qualifications remains sub judice
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a pending civil
appeal.
73.The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant was grossly
negligent in handling the consumer case and failed to act
in the best interest of his client. Despite having access to
multiple RTI responses from MGM Medical College,
Ranchi University, and Bihar Medical Council–none of
whom could produce a copy of the accused doctor’s
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.29/68
MBBS degree–the Defendant refused to challenge the
doctor’s qualifications before NCDRC. His inaction
allowed the Opposite Parties to suppress crucial evidence
and delay the proceedings to their advantage. The
Defendant’s failure to oppose the expunging of Expert
Medical Opinion of Dr. Dipak Ranjan Das further
demonstrates his lack of diligence. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has unequivocally held that cross-examination of a
witness is not mandatory in consumer proceedings, yet the
Defendant did not cite this precedent or object when the
expert opinion was removed from the record. Once the
Plaintiff took over the case, an application was filed for
reinstatement of Dr. Das’s opinion, and upon receiving
fresh summons, Dr. Das voluntarily responded to the
interrogatories. This clearly establishes that the
Defendant’s argument, that forcing an unwilling witness
could be counterproductive, was merely an excuse for his
failure to act.
74.The Plaintiff also strongly refutes the Defendant’s
justification regarding his conflict of interest. The
Defendant has attempted to downplay the issue by
claiming that his representation of Tata Motors, Tata
Locomotives, and Tata Motors Finance before NCDRC
does not amount to a conflict of interest since he never
represented Tata Steel, which owns Tata Main Hospital.
This argument is untenable. Tata Sons is the primary
promoter company of all Tata entities, including Tata
Steel, Tata Motors, and Tata Motors Finance. The
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.30/68
Defendant began representing Tata group companies only
after taking control of the Plaintiff’s case, raising serious
doubts about his professional integrity. His failure to
disclose these engagements to the Plaintiff constitutes a
clear violation of professional ethics under the Advocates
Act. Given his repeated lapses in legal strategy, reluctance
to challenge the accused doctor’s qualifications, and
silence on key procedural matters, the Defendant’s
conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of
collusion with the Opposite Parties.
75.The Defendant’s counterclaim of Rs. 5,00,000/- for
alleged harassment and mental agony is nothing but an
intimidatory tactic aimed at discouraging the Plaintiff from
seeking justice. It lacks merit and should be dismissed
outright. The Plaintiff reiterates that the Defendant’s
conduct severely prejudiced the consumer case. The
Defendant filed a defective plaint, failed to frame the right
questions, allowed the Opposite Parties to manipulate the
proceedings, and limited the scope of the case to medical
negligence while deliberately ignoring the issue of
impersonation and fraudulent medical qualifications. The
first four years of the consumer case, from 2013 to 2016,
were rendered infructuous due to the Defendant’s flawed
strategy. It was only after the Plaintiff assumed direct
control of the case that the matter progressed
meaningfully.
76.The Plaintiff categorically denies the Defendant’s claim
that his services were rendered with diligence and
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.31/68
competence. The Plaintiff had sought the Defendant’s
expertise in good faith, believing that he would act in the
best interest of the case. Instead, the Defendant betrayed
that trust by failing to exercise due diligence, ignoring
crucial evidence, and ultimately prejudicing the Plaintiff’s
case before NCDRC. The Plaintiff further states that the
severance letter dated 09.07.2020, sent to the Defendant,
contained nine specific questions regarding his
unprofessional conduct, none of which the Defendant has
addressed. His refusal to answer these questions or refund
the fees paid to him indicates an admission of guilt.
77.In light of the above, the Plaintiff prays that this Court
dismiss the Defendant’s baseless defenses, reject his
counterclaim, and grant the full relief sought in the suit.
This includes the refund of Rs. 97,500/- paid to the
Defendant, compensation for mental agony, and legal costs
incurred by the Plaintiff. The Court is also urged to take
cognizance of the Defendant’s professional misconduct
and pass appropriate orders to ensure that justice is served.
Plaintiff’s Evidence
PW-1/ Sh. Shishir Chand, Plaintiff
78.PW-1 tendered evidence through an affidavit, exhibited as
Ex. PW1/A, which bore signatures at points A and B. In
support of the case, PW-1 relied upon the following
documents:
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.32/68
o Mark A : Copy of the consumer complaint dated
04.04.2013 filed by defendant at NCDRC.
o Ex. PW1/1 (colly) : Copy of bank account statement of
plaintiff.
o Mark B : Copy of order dated 30.04.2013 passed by
NCDRC.
o Mark C : Copy of order dated 18.11.2013 passed by
NCDRC.
o Ex.PW1/2 (colly.) (9 pages): Copy of emails
exchanged between plaintiff and defendant in January,
March and April, 2016.
o Mark D : Copy of order dated 16.02.2016 passed by
NCDRC.
o Mark E : Copy of order dated 12.08.2016 passed by
NCDRC.
o Ex. PW1/3 : Copy of synopsis for final arguments
shared by defendant with the plaintiff on email.
o Ex.PW1/4 : Copy of bank account statement of
plaintiff.
o Mark F : Copy of application filed by plaintiff before
NCDRC seeking discharge of defendant.
o Mark G : Copy of newspaper report published in the
Telegraph, Calcutta Edition.
o Mark H : Copy of orders passed by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in writ petition civil of plaintiff no.
10452/2016.
o Mark I : Copy of order passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Cour of India in civil appeal diary no. 1550/202
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.33/68
o Mark J : Copy of FIR lodged by the plaintiff dated
25.07.2021.
o Mark K : Copy of order passed by NCDRC dated
07.08.2013 in RP 626/2013.
o Mark L : Copy of order dated 18.11.2013 passed by
NCDRC in FA no. 794/2012.
o Mark M : Copy of order dated 16.09.2014 passed by
NCDRC in RP no. 3810/2013.
o Mark N : Copy of order dated 14.01.2019 passed by
NCDRC in RP no. 1196/2013.
o Ex. PW1/5 : Copy of severance letter issued by
plaintiff to defendant dated 09.07.2020.
o Ex.PW1/6 : Copy of reply dated 10.07.2020 of
defendant to the severance letter.
o Mark O : Copy of counter affidavit filed by Ranchi
University, Delhi High Court.
o Mark P : Copy of counter affidavit filed by Dr. Atul
Chabbra in Delhi High Court.
o Mark R : Copy of RTI application and reply of UGC to
the plaintiff.
o Mark S : Copy of order dated 24.05.2022 passed by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in civil contempt case of
the petitioner against MCI, Tata Steel, Ranchi
University and Dr. Atul Chabbra.
o Ex. PW1/7 (colly.) : Copy of email exchanged between
plaintiff and defendant dated 14.09.2013 and
15.09.2013.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.34/68
o Ex. PW1/8 : Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian
Evidence Act.
o Mark Q (Colly.) : Copy of forged MBBS degree of Dr.
Atul Chabbra along with order of Jharkhand High
Court passed in criminal Misc. case titled S.S Hussan
Vs. State of Bihar dated 17.05.2005.
Evidence Affidavit of PW-1 (Shishir Chand, Plaintiff)
79.PW-1, deposed that his younger brother passed away on
21.05.2011 due to alleged impersonation, cheating, and
medical malpractice by an unqualified doctor employed by
Tata Steel in Jamshedpur. Seeking legal recourse, PW-1
engaged the Defendant, an advocate, in January 2013 to
represent him in a consumer case before the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC),
New Delhi.
80.To address the criminal aspect of the matter, PW-1 lodged
an FIR No. 164/2014 at Bistupur P.S., Jamshedpur, under
Sections 304 and 304A IPC against Tata Steel’s General
Manager and the alleged impersonator. Additionally,
complaints were made to the Bihar Medical Council,
followed by an appeal before the erstwhile Medical
Council of India (MCI). PW-1 alleged that Tata Steel,
being an influential corporate entity, used its power to
subvert the criminal investigation, interfere in the
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.35/68
disciplinary proceedings, and, in collusion with the
Defendant, delay, dilute, and prejudice his consumer case.
81.As a result of these alleged manipulations, 12 IPS officers
from Jharkhand Police, mostly from CB-CID, were facing
prosecution in Criminal Writ Petition No. 106/2009 before
the Jharkhand High Court, and former MCI officials were
facing contempt proceedings before the Delhi High Court
in Civil Contempt Case No. 839/2019. Despite the passage
of over nine years since the institution of the consumer
case on 04.04.2013, PW-1 asserted that it remained
pending before NCDRC, attributing the delay to the
Defendant’s deliberate reluctance to challenge the alleged
fake medical qualifications of the impersonator between
2013 and 2016.
82.PW-1 expressed his belief that the Defendant was
influenced by Tata Steel from the very inception of the
case and acted in a manner prejudicial to the complainant’s
interest. Although suspicions regarding the Defendant’s
professional conduct arose in 2016, it was in March 2020
that PW-1 discovered that the Defendant had received
lucrative legal briefs from various Tata Group companies
after the initiation of the consumer case, thereby creating a
conflict of interest. Copies of four such briefs were placed
on record as evidence.
83.Despite being confronted with allegations of conflict of
interest, the Defendant, in the written statement filed on
16.08.2022, failed to produce any document proving prior
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.36/68
engagement with Tata Group companies before
04.04.2013. By concealing this relationship, PW-1 alleged
that the Defendant violated Section 35 of the Advocates
Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India’s Code of Ethics.
84.Between January and April 2016, PW-1 corresponded with
the Defendant via email, presenting substantial evidence
regarding the allegedly fake MBBS degree of the
impersonator and seeking legal advice on filing an
interlocutory application before NCDRC to bring the
evidence on record. The Defendant, however, dismissed
the suggestion, stating that no action should be taken
unless there was irrefutable proof of fraud. Despite
multiple attempts to engage the Defendant on the issue,
including in-person meetings, PW-1 claimed that the
Defendant exhibited no interest in challenging the
impersonator’s qualification before NCDRC.
85.Due to the Defendant’s alleged negligence and MCI’s
inaction, PW-1 was compelled to file Writ Petition (C) No.
277/2017 before the Delhi High Court, wherein MCI,
Bihar Medical Council, Ranchi University, and the
impersonator were impleaded as respondents. Engaging
multiple advocates, including Senior Advocate Anand
Grover, PW-1 pursued legal proceedings through an LPA
(No. 693/2017) and an SLP (No. 41865/2018) before the
Supreme Court. During these proceedings, Ranchi
University’s counter affidavit revealed contradictions
regarding the mode of the impersonator’s MBBS
admission–one document indicated admission under the
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.37/68
85% state quota, while the MBBS Admission Register,
obtained under RTI, reflected admission under the 15%
CBSE quota. These contradictions were placed on record
as part of the case.
86.Further, in LPA No. 693/2017, the impersonator claimed
to have secured an All-India Rank of 1890 in the CBSE
AIPMT 1989 exam but admitted to having no
documentary proof of selection. However, records
indicated that only 1400 seats were allotted under the
normal course that year, further raising doubts about the
veracity of the impersonator’s admission claim.
87.PW-1 asserted that the impersonator’s MBBS degree was
forged and fraudulently issued in 1998 under the purported
signature of an acting Vice-Chancellor of Ranchi
University, who had criminal antecedents. Supporting
evidence, including UGC’s concerns over the degree’s
legitimacy, was placed on record.
88.During W.P. (C) No. 277/2017 proceedings, PW-1
contended that Tata Steel’s counsel misled the Delhi High
Court, resulting in an erroneous order. However, in
subsequent contempt proceedings, the Hon’ble High Court
issued notices to MCI, Tata Steel, Ranchi University, and
the impersonator, indicating judicial acknowledgment of
the allegations. PW-1 also scrutinized the consumer
complaint filed by the Defendant at NCDRC and found it
deficient in several respects. The complaint failed to seek
interest on compensation, did not implead the deceased’s
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.38/68
employer or the Bihar Medical Council, and suffered from
other drafting flaws. These omissions, according to PW-1,
suggested a deliberate attempt by the Defendant to weaken
the case.
89.Further, in 2016, the expert medical opinion of Dr. Dipak
Ranjan Das, a government cardiologist who had furnished
evidence in favor of PW-1’s case, was expunged from the
NCDRC record due to non-reply to interrogatories. PW-1
accused the Defendant of failing to oppose this move,
despite the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the Dr. Kunal Saha case regarding the admissibility of
expert medical opinions in consumer proceedings.
Consequently, PW-1 personally appeared before NCDRC
and successfully secured the reinstatement of Dr. Das’s
expert opinion, proving that the expunction was
unjustified.
90.PW-1 further stated that his last professional engagement
with the Defendant was in January 2017, when the
Defendant was asked to draft a synopsis for final
arguments. Upon reviewing the four-page document,
PW-1 found it to be superficial, lacking legal references,
and ineffective in countering the opposing arguments.
Dissatisfied, he engaged another advocate to prepare a
more robust argument.
91.Ultimately, PW-1 suspended the Defendant’s services in
February 2017 and formally moved an application (IA No.
3290/2020) before NCDRC in March 2020 to discharge
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.39/68
the Defendant. Subsequently, a Letter of Severance was
issued on 09.07.2020, wherein PW-1 posed nine questions
to the Defendant regarding professional misconduct and
sought a refund of Rs. 97,500/- in legal fees. The
Defendant neither responded to the allegations nor
refunded the amount, prompting PW-1 to pursue legal
recovery.
92.To substantiate the fee payment, bank statements were
placed on record. Additionally, PW-1 stated that due to the
Defendant’s alleged deficiencies, he had to engage
multiple advocates at the Hon’ble High Court and
Supreme Court, incurring additional costs of
approximately Rs. 2,00,000/-. Eventually, NCDRC
allowed IA No. 3290/2020 on 28.03.2022, formally
relieving the Defendant from his role in the case.
93.PW-1 concluded that the Defendant’s unprofessional
conduct, conflict of interest, negligence, and deficiency in
service severely prejudiced the consumer case, caused
undue delay, and imposed an additional financial burden.
Cross-examination of PW-1
94.During cross-examination, PW-1 was confronted with the
fact that Writ Petition (C) No. 277/2017 had been filed
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and that a final
order had been pronounced in the said writ petition on
30.08.2017. While acknowledging the pronouncement of
the order, PW-1 categorically denied the suggestion that
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.40/68
the said order contained a conclusive finding on the
authenticity of Dr. Atul Chhabra’s medical degree. The
court had merely recorded that it found no immediate
reason to further verify his qualification based on the
documents produced before it at that stage. However, these
documents, including a copy of the MBBS degree, had
been placed before the court without an accompanying
affidavit and had never been subjected to forensic scrutiny.
95.PW-1 further submitted that the said order had been
challenged before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in LPA No. 693/2017. The Division Bench,
in its order dated 26.04.2018, had not rendered any
absolute or final finding on the authenticity of Dr. Atul
Chhabra’s degree but had merely observed that he had
attended a medical college and had produced a degree
before the court. No forensic examination of the degree
had been conducted at any stage. PW-1 had also filed a
Review Petition (R.A. No. 246/2018), which was
dismissed, and subsequently, a Special Leave Petition
(SLP No. 41865/2018) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, which was dismissed in limine. However, PW-1
emphasized that a dismissal in limine did not amount to an
affirmation of findings on merit, nor did it create any
binding precedent in law.
96.It was incorrect to suggest that these orders had been
suppressed or withheld from the present suit. The reason
for their omission was that the present case pertained to
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.41/68
the professional misconduct of the defendant in handling
the consumer complaint before the NCDRC, and the
findings of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a writ petition
were not directly relevant to this issue. The qualification of
Dr. Atul Chhabra remained in dispute, and fresh evidence
had emerged establishing that his educational credentials,
including his Intermediate (10+2) and B.Sc. degree, were
fraudulent. FIRs had been lodged, and multiple court
proceedings were ongoing in this regard.
97.Concerns regarding Dr. Atul Chhabra’s qualifications had
been raised as early as January 2016, and multiple emails
had been sent to the defendant regarding these
apprehensions. In response, the defendant had stated that
he was not in favor of bringing up the issue of the degree
unless there was irrefutable proof of its falsity. However,
subsequent investigations had revealed that Dr. Atul
Chhabra was indeed in possession of multiple fake
degrees. The defendant’s failure to challenge his
qualifications at the appropriate time had resulted in
unnecessary delays and had prejudiced the consumer case.
98.It was also incorrect to suggest that the suit had been filed
without taking legal advice. Having been actively
litigating in various forums for over a decade, PW-1 was
well aware of the professional lapses committed by the
defendant. These included the failure to challenge the
doctor’s qualification, failure to properly represent the
case, which led to the expunging of crucial expert medical
opinion, and the revelation that the defendant had later
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.42/68
received lucrative briefs from Tata Group companies after
being engaged as counsel in the NCDRC case.
99.Evidence had been placed on record showing that the
defendant had been engaged in four cases by Tata Group
companies after the institution of the consumer complaint
in 2013. It was firmly believed that the defendant had not
represented Tata Motors before this engagement. Details
of these cases had been obtained from the NCDRC
website, Google searches, and RTI applications. The
defendant had not produced any documents to establish
that he had been engaged by Tata Group companies before
being retained by PW-1, reinforcing the belief that he had
been induced by Tata Sons with lucrative briefs in a quid
pro quo arrangement.
100. During further cross-examination, PW-1 reiterated
that the reply given by Dr. Deepak Ranjan Das had not
been filed before this court. However, it was clarified that
Dr. Das, a cardiologist employed by the State Government
of Odisha, had initially provided expert medical opinion in
support of the case but was later subjected to intimidation
by Tata Steel, leading him to express his inability to assist
further. The defendant had failed to challenge the
expunging of Dr. Das’s expert opinion from the record,
despite the settled legal position established in the
landmark Dr. Kunal Saha case, which held that the
Evidence Act did not strictly apply to consumer
proceedings and that cross-examination was not
mandatory. Consequently, PW-1 had appeared in person
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.43/68
before the NCDRC and successfully argued for the
reinstatement of Dr. Das’s expert opinion, leading to the
issuance of a fresh notice to him. Dr. Das had ultimately
furnished replies to the interrogatories, which further
strengthened the case by reaffirming that the patient’s
death had resulted from gross medical negligence.
101. The defendant had also failed to implead crucial
parties such as the Bihar Medical Council, which had
issued a medical license to the doctor, and the employer of
the deceased brother, Timken India Ltd. Given the severity
and gravity of the case, these entities should have been
made parties in the consumer complaint. The defendant’s
omissions had severely compromised the case and delayed
its resolution.
102. It was incorrect to suggest that media attention had
been pursued solely for publicity. As the Delhi
Coordinator of PBT India, an NGO dedicated to assisting
victims of medical negligence, PW-1 had a duty to
highlight such cases. However, the discharge of the
defendant had been solely based on his professional
misconduct and not for personal gain.
103. Regarding the delay in seeking interest on
compensation, PW-1 acknowledged that IA No.
3291/2020 had been filed before the NCDRC seeking an
additional prayer for interest from the date of filing the
complaint. Although this application had been dismissed
due to a delay of seven years, it did not negate the
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.44/68
defendant’s initial lapse in failing to explicitly pray for
interest in the original complaint.
104. It was categorically denied that the allegations
against the defendant were baseless. The professional
misconduct, negligence, and deficiency in service on the
defendant’s part had been established through multiple
instances, including his failure to challenge the fraudulent
qualification of the treating doctor, his inaction when key
expert evidence was expunged, and his conflict of interest
in accepting engagements from Tata Group companies
after taking up the consumer case.
Defendant’s Evidence
DW-1/ Sh. T. V. George, Defendant
105. DW-1/ Defendant, Sh. T. V. George, tendered his
evidence by way of an affidavit, which was exhibited as
Ex. DW1/1, bearing his signatures at points A and B. In
support of his testimony, DW-1 relied upon the following
documents:
o Ex. DW1/2 – Certified copy of the final order passed
by the Hon’ble NCDRC in F.A. No. 394 of 2019 dated
12.01.2024.
o Ex. DW1/3 – Certified copy of the final order passed
by the Hon’ble NCDRC in Consumer Complaint No.
2860 of 2017 dated 11.10.2023.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.45/68
o Ex. DW1/4 – Certified copy of the final order passed
by the Hon’ble NCDRC in RP No. 3123 of 2016 dated
28.08.2019.
o Ex. DW1/5 – Certified copy of the final order passed
by the Hon’ble NCDRC in RP No. 3464 of 2016 dated
13.11.2023.
o Ex. DW1/6 – Certified copy of the final order passed
by the Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in W.P. (C) No. 277 of 2017 dated 30.08.2017.
o Ex. DW1/7 – Certified copy of the final order passed
by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in LPA No. 693 of 2017 dated 26.04.2018.
o Ex. DW1/8 – Certified copy of the final order passed
by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in Review Petition No. 246 of 2018 in LPA No.
693 of 2017 dated 06.07.2018.
o Ex. DW1/9 – Certified copy of the final order passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No.
41865 of 2018 dated 22.11.2018.
o Ex. DW1/10 – Certified copy of the order in RP No.
4428 of 2009 dated 29.08.2013, passed by the Hon’ble
NCDRC.
o Mark DW1/A – Copy of the order in RP No. 2564 of
2010 dated 03.09.2010, passed by the Hon’ble
NCDRC.
o Ex. DW1/11 (Colly.) – Certified copy of the record of
proceedings in Consumer Complaint No. 83 of 2013.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.46/68
Evidence Affidavit of DW-1 (Defendant, T.V. George)
106. T.V. George, an advocate with over two decades of
legal practice, has built a reputation for professionalism
and integrity. Enrolled in 1996, he has been practicing
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court since 2001 and was
recognized as an Advocate-on-Record in 2004. His legal
career spans multiple courts, including the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (NCDRC), with around 400 reported
judgments in esteemed law journals such as SCC and AIR.
Throughout his career, he has conducted cases with utmost
sincerity, diligence, and adherence to legal ethics.
107. In January 2013, the plaintiff, on the
recommendation of Dr. Kunal Saha, a well-known figure
in medical negligence litigation, engaged his legal services
for a case concerning the alleged wrongful death of the
plaintiff’s brother due to medical negligence. A fee
structure was agreed upon, Rs. 40,000/- for drafting
pleadings and Rs. 3,500/- per appearance. The defendant
meticulously handled all aspects of the case, including
filing pleadings, drafting interrogatories, responding to the
opposite party’s interrogatories, and filing interlocutory
applications before the NCDRC. By 21st October 2016, all
pleadings and evidence were completed without any
delays attributable to him.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.47/68
108. However, shortly after, the plaintiff informed the
defendant that his services were no longer required and
that he would personally handle the case. The decision to
discharge the defendant was not due to any deficiency in
service but rather because the plaintiff sought to gain
personal recognition and media attention. Since then, the
plaintiff actively engaged with print and electronic media,
portraying himself as a legal crusader.
109. After taking over the case, the plaintiff began filing
a series of unnecessary and counterproductive
interlocutory applications before the NCDRC. When the
commission did not rule in his favor, he made baseless
allegations of bias against its members, leading to multiple
judges recusing themselves from the matter. This resulted
in considerable delays in the case, which the plaintiff later
sought to attribute to the defendant.
110. Three years after the consumer complaint was filed,
the plaintiff raised concerns regarding the authenticity of
the doctor’s MBBS degree, urging the defendant to
incorporate this claim into the case. The defendant,
exercising professional caution, advised against making
such allegations without conclusive proof, a position he
communicated to the plaintiff via email on 3rd November
2016. The plaintiff, however, disregarded this legal
counsel and proceeded to approach the Delhi High Court
and the Supreme Court through different advocates. These
courts, after hearing the matter in multiple proceedings
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.48/68
between 2017 and 2018, conclusively upheld the validity
of the doctor’s degree. The plaintiff, despite these rulings,
suppressed this fact and continued making false
accusations against the defendant.
111. Another grievance raised by the plaintiff was that
the defendant had not compelled Dr. Deepak Ranjan Das,
a government cardiologist and a key expert witness, to
respond to interrogatories filed by the opposite party.
Initially, Dr. Das provided an expert medical opinion
favoring the plaintiff’s case. However, due to alleged
pressure from his employer, he later refused to respond to
the interrogatories. The defendant, exercising professional
judgment, cautioned that forcing an unwilling witness to
testify could be detrimental to the case. The plaintiff
ignored this advice and later coerced Dr. Das into
submitting responses. Despite this, the plaintiff refused to
place Dr. Das’s replies on record before the court, giving
rise to a strong presumption that the replies were
unfavorable to him.
112. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant had
caused delays in the consumer complaint’s disposal. In
reality, the defendant had completed all pleadings and
evidence by October 2016, and was never given the
opportunity to argue the case. After assuming control, the
plaintiff himself managed the case for over six years, yet
later sought to blame the defendant for the prolonged
litigation.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.49/68
113. The plaintiff also raised concerns over the structure
of the legal submissions made by the defendant,
particularly regarding a four-page synopsis filed before the
NCDRC. The defendant clarified that NCDRC had
specifically directed both parties to submit short
summaries of no more than 3-4 pages, which he duly
complied with. The plaintiff’s claim stemmed from a
misunderstanding between a synopsis and a detailed
written submission.
114. Another major allegation involved a purported
conflict of interest between the defendant and Tata Group
companies. The plaintiff accused the defendant of
colluding with Tata Steel, as he had previously represented
Tata Motors, Tata Finance, and TELCO in other cases.
The defendant refuted these allegations, pointing out that
these companies were separate legal entities from Tata
Steel and Tata Main Hospital and that he had never
advised or represented Tata Steel in any matter, let alone
in the plaintiff’s case.
115. The plaintiff also asserted that the defendant failed
to seek interest on the compensation amount in the
consumer complaint. However, the NCDRC itself ruled
that no separate prayer for interest was required, and when
the plaintiff later filed an application to add such a request,
it was rejected by the NCDRC on the same grounds.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.50/68
116. Regarding the non-impleadment of the employer
and the Bihar Medical Council, the plaintiff alleged that
the defendant had been negligent in excluding these parties
as opposite parties in the consumer complaint. The
defendant dismissed this claim as a misinterpretation of
legal principles, explaining that employers of deceased
patients are not necessary parties in medical negligence
claims. Similarly, the plaintiff’s assertion that Tata Main
Hospital should have been named as Opposite Party No.1
instead of the doctor was legally unfounded, as the cause
title arrangement does not affect liability determination in
consumer cases.
117. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff’s
malicious litigation had severely damaged his professional
reputation and caused immense mental distress. The
plaintiff deliberately circulated copies of the suit in the
Supreme Court’s advocate chambers, leading to
unwarranted speculation among his peers and professional
colleagues. Conversations in the Supreme Court’s
common canteen further confirmed that the case had been
weaponized to tarnish the defendant’s name.
118. Given the malicious nature of the suit, the defendant
decided to counterclaim for defamation, harassment,
mental agony, and financial loss, limiting the claim to Rs.
3 lakhs for jurisdictional purposes, though the actual
damages were far greater.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.51/68
119. To substantiate his defense, the defendant relied on
multiple judicial orders from NCDRC, Delhi High Court,
and the Supreme Court, including:
o Final rulings from NCDRC in various appeals and
review petitions.
o High Court orders in Writ Petition, LPA, and Review
Petitions, all confirming the validity of the doctor’s
degree.
o Supreme Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s Special
Leave Petition (SLP) in 2018, further affirming the
findings of lower courts.
120. The defendant asserted that the entire case was a
misuse of the legal system, aimed at harassing and
defaming him for personal and media-driven motives. The
plaintiff had repeatedly suppressed unfavorable judicial
findings, filed baseless applications, and disregarded
sound legal advice. Given these facts, the defendant sought
dismissal of the suit and a counterclaim for damages.
Cross-Examination of DW-1
121. During cross-examination, DW-1 confirmed that the
plaintiff had engaged his services in January 2013 for
filing a consumer complaint at NCDRC concerning
allegations of medical negligence. He denied any omission
in the drafting of the consumer complaint, including the
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.52/68
failure to implead the employer of the deceased or to seek
interest on compensation.
122. Regarding his professional engagements with Tata
Group companies, DW-1 stated that he had been
representing them in NCDRC matters since at least 2010.
He denied the assertion that he had been offered multiple
cases by Tata Group only after taking up the plaintiff’s
case. When questioned on potential conflicts of interest, he
stated that he could not recall specific provisions of the
Advocates Act, 1961, without referring to the statute.
123. On the issue of the accused doctor’s medical
qualifications, DW-1 maintained that judicial proceedings
should be based on clear and irrefutable evidence rather
than allegations or suspicions. He acknowledged that he
had advised the plaintiff against challenging the medical
qualifications of the doctor in NCDRC due to a lack of
concrete proof. He further stated that unless reliable
material was provided, he would consider a doctor in
regular medical practice as duly qualified.
124. When asked about the legal findings on the accused
doctor’s degree, DW-1 stated that the Single Bench of the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court had upheld the validity of the
MBBS degree, a finding later affirmed by the Division
Bench. The plaintiff’s Special Leave Petition before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had also been dismissed in limine.
He described the plaintiff’s allegations of fraud and deceit
in securing these judgments as baseless and noted that
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.53/68
filing multiple cases did not establish the veracity of such
allegations.
125. Regarding criminal cases against Tata Steel and the
accused doctor, DW-1 admitted to knowledge of certain
FIRs based on documents filed in the present case but
reiterated that the existence of an FIR or legal proceedings
alone does not prove the allegations. He denied any
awareness of alleged fraud played upon Hon’ble Delhi
High Court and stated that obtaining orders through deceit
was not a simple matter.
126. When questioned about the expunging of the expert
medical opinion of Dr. Deepak Ranjan Das, DW-1
confirmed that the NCDRC had removed the opinion after
the witness refused to answer interrogatories. He disagreed
with the plaintiff’s interpretation of Dr. Kunal Saha’s case,
stating that the ruling only applied where the opposite
party failed to cross-examine a witness, which was not the
situation in the present case. He rejected the suggestion
that he had conspired with Tata Steel to suppress the
expert opinion.
127. DW-1 also confirmed that he was aware that the
plaintiff had later persuaded NCDRC to reinstate Dr.
Deepak Ranjan Das’s expert opinion, but he asserted that
compelling a reluctant witness to testify could be risky. He
pointed out that the plaintiff had not placed the doctor’s
replies to interrogatories before this Hon’ble Court,
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.54/68
implying that they may not have been favorable to the
plaintiff’s case.
128. Regarding the cause title of the consumer complaint,
DW-1 stated that Dr. Atul Chhabra was named as
Opposite Party No. 1 because he was the treating doctor,
and there was no fixed liability ratio between a hospital
and a doctor in medical negligence cases. He refuted
allegations that the cause title had been deliberately
framed to shield Tata Steel from reputational harm.
129. He acknowledged that NCDRC had rejected the
plaintiff’s recent attempt to modify the cause title, a
decision strongly opposed by Tata Steel. However, he
denied any involvement in corporate image management
for Tata Steel and instead stated that he had suffered
significant professional and reputational damage due to the
plaintiff’s “malicious and frivolous” allegations.
Analysis and Findings
Issue No. 1:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs.
97,500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum, as prayed for in
prayer clause (ii)? (OPP)
130. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
Player clause (ii) of the plaint reads as follows:-
“Pass a decree in favor of the Plaintiff for recovery
of fees paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant duringCS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.55/68
the four-year period from March 2013 to January
2017 and amounting to Rs 97,500/- along with
interest @ 18% per annum.”
131. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff
seeking recovery of Rs. 97,500/- paid as legal fees to the
defendant, along with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum. The plaintiff has also sought compensation of Rs.
50,000/- for alleged harassment and mental agony,
litigation costs of Rs. 20,000/-, and other reliefs. The
defendant has denied the allegations and has
counterclaimed damages for reputational harm and mental
distress.
132. The burden of proof lay on the plaintiff to establish
that the amount of Rs. 97,500/- was paid to the defendant
for legal services that were not duly rendered, or that the
defendant’s services were deficient to the extent that a
refund was warranted. The plaintiff was required to
demonstrate that the defendant either failed in his
professional duty, acted negligently, or caused substantial
harm to the plaintiff’s case. To substantiate his claim, the
plaintiff primarily relied on two allegations:
o That the defendant did not challenge the qualifications
of the doctor accused in the consumer complaint.
o That the defendant was allegedly compromised due toprofessional engagements with Tata Group companies,
thereby leading to a conflict of interest.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.56/68
133. However, a careful examination of the evidence
reveals that the defendant duly performed his professional
obligations as a legal representative. The record shows that
the defendant drafted and filed the consumer complaint,
prepared the pleadings, ensured compliance with
procedural requirements before the NCDRC, etc.
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.
134. Regarding the plaintiff’s contention that the
defendant should have raised the issue of the doctor’s
alleged fake MBBS degree, it is pertinent to note that the
defendant’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.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.57/68
135. Moreover, the plaintiff has not provided any direct
evidence to establish that the defendant had been
“compromised” or influenced by Tata Group companies.
The assertion that the defendant represented Tata Group
entities in other matters before the NCDRC does not, by
itself, establish a conflict of interest in the plaintiff’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.
136. In 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.
137. Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to establish that
the fee paid was unearned or that there was any deficiency
in service. This issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future
interest @ 18% from the date of filing till realization, as prayed
for in prayer clause (iii)? (OPP)
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.58/68
138. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
Prayer clause (iii) of the plaint reads as follows:-
“Pass a decree in favor of the Plaintiff for Pendilite
and future interest @18% from the date of filing of
this compliant till actual receipt of the amount.”
139. Since the claim for recovery of Rs. 97,500/- has
been denied, the claim for pendente lite and future interest
also does not sustain. The rate of interest claimed is
exorbitant and has no contractual or statutory basis. This
issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 3:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree directing the
defendant to compensate the plaintiff by paying a lump sum
amount of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and mental agony, as
prayed for in prayer clause (iv)? (OPP)
140. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
Prayer clause (iv) of the plaint reads as follows:-
“Pass an Order in favor of the Plaintiff directing
Defendant to compensate the Plaintiff a lumpsum
amount of Rs 50,000/- for causing mental agony,
pain, harassment on account of deficiency of service
and duplication of efforts and for prejudicing and
delaying the consumer case of the complainant.”
141. In considering the plaintiff’s claim for compensation
of Rs. 50,000/- for alleged harassment and mental agony,
it is essential to evaluate whether the defendant engaged in
conduct that was wrongful, reckless, or fraudulent. The
burden of proof lay on the plaintiff to establish that the
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.59/68
defendant acted in a manner that caused undue hardship,
distress, or mental trauma beyond the ordinary course of
legal representation. However, no substantive evidence has
been presented to support such a conclusion.
142. The facts reveal that the plaintiff had engaged the
defendant as his legal counsel for a consumer case, and the
defendant duly performed his professional duties. The
record reflects that the defendant prepared pleadings,
facilitated the examination of witnesses, and complied
with all procedural formalities before the NCDRC. There
is no evidence to suggest that the defendant acted
negligently, unethically, or in a manner detrimental to the
plaintiff’s interests.
143. A key aspect to consider is that the plaintiff himself
chose to discharge the defendant from legal representation
and took over the conduct of the case. If any grievance
existed regarding the quality of legal services, the
appropriate remedy would have been to raise such issues at
the relevant stage rather than belatedly asserting claims of
mental agony. Dissatisfaction with legal strategy, no
matter how strongly felt, does not give rise to a claim for
harassment, particularly when the plaintiff had the
autonomy to seek alternative counsel.
144. The allegations primarily stem from the plaintiff’s
contention that the defendant failed to challenge the
medical qualifications of a doctor before the consumer
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.60/68
commission. However, judicial records demonstrate that
the issue of the doctor’s credentials was independently
adjudicated before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The defendant’s decision not to
raise unsubstantiated claims in the consumer complaint
was a matter of legal strategy and professional judgment,
not negligence or malafide intent.
145. Furthermore, no evidence has been presented to
indicate that the defendant engaged in any conduct
intended to cause distress or inconvenience to the plaintiff.
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.
146. Given these considerations, the claim for Rs.
50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental
agony is unsubstantiated and legally untenable. The claim
appears to be more of a retrospective attempt to attribute
legal setbacks to the defendant rather than a well-founded
grievance based on proven facts.
147. Accordingly, the court finds no basis to grant the
relief sought, and this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.61/68
Issue No. 4:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-,
as prayed for in prayer clause (v)? (OPP)
148. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the Plaintiff.
Prayer clause (v) of the plaint reads as follows:-
“Pass an order in favour of the Plaintiff for litigation
cost amounting to Rs 20,000/-”
149. Since the plaintiff has failed to establish his claim,
he is not entitled to litigation costs. This issue is decided
against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 5:
Whether the present suit has been filed without any cause of
action? (OPD)
150. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the
defendant.
151. A cause of action is a fundamental prerequisite for
the institution of any legal proceeding, requiring the
plaintiff to demonstrate that a legal right has been violated
or that an actionable wrong has been committed by the
defendant. In the present case, the plaintiff’s grievances
stem from his dissatisfaction with the legal representation
provided by the defendant in a consumer case. However,
dissatisfaction alone, without concrete evidence of
professional misconduct or gross negligence, does not
constitute a valid cause of action.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.62/68
152. The plaintiff voluntarily engaged the defendant as
legal counsel and subsequently discharged him before the
conclusion of the case. The record indicates that the
defendant performed his professional duties by drafting
pleadings, ensuring compliance with procedural
requirements before the NCDRC etc. The plaintiff’s
primary contention revolves around the defendant’s
decision not to challenge the medical qualifications of a
doctor involved in the case. However, as previously
established, this issue was adjudicated separately by the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The defendant’s decision to refrain from raising an
unsubstantiated claim was a matter of professional
judgment and legal strategy, not an act of negligence.
153. For a suit to be maintainable, the plaintiff must
demonstrate a direct legal injury or a breach of duty that
gives rise to a legally enforceable claim. In this instance,
the plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence that the
defendant’s actions amounted to professional misconduct,
breach of contract, or a violation of any legal duty. The
mere fact that the plaintiff was dissatisfied with certain
legal decisions or outcomes does not confer upon him a
cause of action, particularly when he had the option to
seek alternative counsel and continue the litigation.
154. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s allegations appear to be
retrospective attempts to attribute legal setbacks to the
defendant, rather than genuine claims supported by legal
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.63/68
principles or factual evidence. Courts have consistently
held that professional decisions made by advocates in
good faith and in the best interest of their clients do not
provide grounds for legal action, unless it is proven that
such decisions were made with malafide intent,
recklessness, or gross incompetence.
155. The absence of any demonstrable breach of
professional duty or legal wrongdoing by the defendant
reinforces the conclusion that the present suit lacks a
substantive cause of action. It appears to be an attempt to
seek compensation for perceived grievances that do not
hold legal merit. The claim does not establish a justiciable
controversy warranting judicial intervention.
156. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favor of the
defendant, as the suit appears to have been filed without a
valid cause of action.
Issue No. 6:
Whether the present suit has not been properly valued for
purposes of court fee? (OPD)
157. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the
defendant.
158. The valuation of a suit for the purpose of court fees
is governed by the Court Fees Act, 1870, and relevant
procedural laws. The primary consideration in determining
whether a suit has been properly valued is whether the
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.64/68
valuation corresponds to the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff
and whether the appropriate court fees have been paid.
159. In the present case, the defendant has raised an
objection that the suit has not been properly valued for the
purpose of court fees. However, the burden of proof to
establish such a contention lies upon the defendant. The
defendant was required to demonstrate that the plaintiff
either undervalued the claims in an attempt to evade
payment of the requisite court fees or incorrectly assessed
the reliefs sought. However, the defendant has failed to
present any conclusive evidence or legal basis to
substantiate this claim.
160. The plaintiff, on the other hand, has sought recovery
of Rs.97,500/- along with claims for compensation,
interest, and litigation costs. There is no apparent
discrepancy in the manner in which the suit has been
valued, nor is there any indication that the plaintiff has
deliberately under-valued the suit to pay a lesser court fee.
Moreover, if there had been any material deficiency in the
court fee paid, the court would have had the authority to
direct the plaintiff to make good the shortfall. However, no
such deficiency has been established on record.
161. In cases where a party alleges improper valuation, it
must be shown that such valuation affects the jurisdiction
of the court or prejudices the rights of the opposing party.
In the absence of any such showing, mere allegations of
improper valuation remain unsubstantiated. Since the
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.65/68
defendant has failed to discharge the burden of proof on
this issue, there is no reason to conclude that the suit has
been undervalued.
162. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the
defendant.
Issue No. 7:
Whether the present suit is barred by limitation? (OPD)
163. Th Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
164. Under the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit for recovery
of money based on a contract must be instituted within
three years from the date on which the right to sue accrues.
The crux of the issue in this case is determining when the
cause of action arose and whether the plaintiff’s claim falls
within the statutory limitation period.
165. The plaintiff engaged the services of the defendant
in 2013 for legal representation in a consumer dispute. The
professional engagement between the parties continued
until the plaintiff formally discharged the defendant in
2016. If the plaintiff had any grievance regarding the
defendant’s legal services, including allegations of
negligence, misconduct, or deficiency, the right to seek
legal recourse would have arisen at the latest in 2016,
when the professional relationship was terminated.
Consequently, the limitation period for filing a suit for
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.66/68
recovery of money or compensation would have expired
by 2019.
166. However, the present suit was instituted in 2021,
which is beyond the three-year statutory period. The
plaintiff has neither provided any cogent explanation for
the delay nor demonstrated the existence of a continuous
cause of action that would extend the limitation period.
The plaintiff has also failed to show any acknowledgment
of liability by the defendant that could have extended the
limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
167. It is well settled that limitation laws are not mere
technicalities but substantive provisions that govern the
enforceability of legal rights. Courts are bound to reject
claims that are time-barred unless the delay is
satisfactorily explained or falls within recognized
exceptions. In this case, the plaintiff has not provided any
valid justification for the delay, and no special
circumstances exist to warrant condonation of the same.
168. Accordingly, the suit is barred by limitation, and
this issue is decided in favor of the defendant.
Relief:
169. In view of the findings on the issues framed, no
relief can be granted to the plaintiff. The suit filed by the
plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.67/68
170. No Order as to costs.
171. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
Announced in the open court
ANURADHA by ANURADHA
JINDAL
on 07.03.2025. JINDAL Date: 2025.03.07
(ANURADHA JINDAL)
16:18:35 +0530
ASCJ-cum-JSCC-CUM-GJ (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS SCJ 908/21 SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE PAGE NO.68/68
