Delhi Court Dismisses Suit Against Supreme Court Lawyer TV George Over Professional Negligence

Contents

Court Rejects Allegations Against TV George

A Delhi court dismissed a suit accusing Supreme Court lawyer TV George of professional negligence, conflict of interest, and deficiency in service.
The case was related to his legal representation in a medical negligence complaint against Tata Steel, which operates Tata Main Hospital (TMH) in Jamshedpur.

Additional Senior Civil Judge Anuradha Jindal rejected the plea seeking a refund of ₹97,500 in legal fees along with 18% annual interest.
The plaintiff, Shishir Chand, also sought compensation and litigation costs, which the court denied.

TV George represented Shishir Chand in a medical negligence case at the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
Chand’s younger brother had died in 2011 after being discharged from TMH’s Emergency Ward following treatment for chest pain.
He blamed the hospital for negligence and accused it of employing a fake doctor, filing a consumer complaint in 2013.
Chand discharged George in 2016 but still filed a suit against him in 2021.

The Court ruled that mere dissatisfaction with an advocate’s legal strategy does not justify claims of harassment.
Judge Jindal observed: “Dissatisfaction alone, without concrete evidence of professional misconduct or gross negligence, does not constitute a valid cause of action.”
The Court added: “Dissatisfaction with legal strategy, no matter how strongly felt, does not give rise to a claim for harassment, particularly when Chand had the autonomy to seek alternative counsel.”

The Court found no proof that George caused distress or inconvenience to the plaintiff.
It emphasized that legal representation involves strategic decision-making, and differences in legal approach do not amount to mental agony or harassment.
Judge Jindal stated: “The plaintiff has failed to establish any fraudulent misrepresentation, coercion, or deliberate misconduct on the part of the defendant that would warrant compensation.”

The Court found that George fulfilled his professional obligations while representing Chand before the NCDRC.
He advised Chand on legal strategy and warned against making unverified allegations.
The judgment noted: “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.”

The Court ruled that George was not negligent in not raising the issue of the doctor’s alleged fake MBBS degree.
It clarified: “The decision to refrain from making such an allegation without conclusive proof was a professional judgment, which cannot retrospectively be labeled as negligence.”
The Court highlighted that Delhi High Court and Supreme Court later adjudicated on the same issue, and the outcome would not have changed.

The Court dismissed Chand’s claim that George was influenced by Tata Group.
It observed that merely representing Tata Group entities in other cases does not establish a conflict of interest.
The ruling stated: “There is no evidence to suggest that the defendant had any pre-existing engagement with Tata Steel (to the prejudice of the plaintiff), the entity against whom the consumer complaint was filed.”

The Court ruled that legal fees can only be refunded if a lawyer is found guilty of fraud, negligence, or incompetence.
Since George acted professionally, no refund was warranted.
Judge Jindal stated: “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 Court dismissed the suit, reaffirming that an advocate’s strategic decisions do not equate to professional negligence.

The Delhi Court fully exonerated TV George of all allegations.
The ruling reinforces that dissatisfaction with legal representation is not grounds for a negligence claim.
This judgment sets an important precedent for cases involving professional ethics and client-advocate disputes.

Click Here to Read the original Judgment: [SHISHIR CHAND Vs. T.V. GEORGE]