A Delhi court has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Supreme Court lawyer TV George of professional negligence, conflict of interest, and deficient service in a high-stakes medical negligence case against Tata Steel’s Tata Main Hospital (TMH) in Jamshedpur.
The plaintiff, Shishir Chand, had sought a refund of ₹97,500 in legal fees, plus 18% annual interest, along with compensation and litigation costs. However, Additional Senior Civil Judge Anuradha Jindal ruled that mere dissatisfaction with legal strategy does not equate to harassment or misconduct.
Chand had hired George to represent him in a consumer case before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) over the death of his younger brother, who passed away in 2011 after receiving treatment at TMH’s emergency ward. Chand alleged the hospital negligently discharged his brother and employed an unqualified doctor. The consumer case was filed in 2013, but Chand later discharged George in 2016 and began representing himself. Despite this, he filed a lawsuit against the lawyer in 2021.
The court found that George had fulfilled his professional obligations and that his legal strategy—including caution in making unverified allegations—was sound. It emphasized that legal representation requires strategic decision-making, and a lawyer’s approach may not always align with a client’s expectations. However, that does not amount to professional misconduct.
The ruling further stated that there was no evidence George had any prior engagement with Tata Steel that would create a conflict of interest. Additionally, it clarified that the refund of legal fees in civil cases is only warranted in instances of fraud, incompetence, or a clear failure to perform professional duties—none of which were established in this case.
Ultimately, the court upheld the principle that legal dissatisfaction, no matter how strong, does not justify claims of harassment or negligence, dismissing Chand’s suit in its entirety.