V.P.RAMAN Vs. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relationship between an advocate and his client is by nature a fiduciary one which has as its basis - trust and faith. This relationship also entails responsibility, which both parties are expected to shoulder equally. The case at hand however exposes the complete lack of faith on the part of the respondent towards their standing counsel, and further brings to light the unequal relationship between them and the unreasonable expectations of the respondent towards the petitioner, who is none other than their own standing counsel to whom they have been entrusting all the cases to represent them in various courts, including this Court.

(2.) According to the petitioner herein, he was serving as a standing counsel to the respondent Commission, representing them before this Court for nearly 12 years and he was paid with his professional fees at the time of conclusion of each case. However, some bills/invoices were sent for processing, the respondent insisted the petitioner to furnish the daily orders reflecting his name in the same, which is not possible for all the cases. Hence, he resigned his post and thereafter, he sent several representations to the respondent for clearing the invoices, which he had raised, but, the same evoked no response.

(3.) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent with an intent to avoid payment of professional fees, directed the petitioner to produce certain proof, on technical ground, which is arbitrary and illegal. Adding further, he submitted that at the first instance, the respondent insisted the petitioner to provide daily orders reflecting his name along with causelists, which were duly sent to them. Even then, they are insisting the petitioner to raise separate invoices for each date of hearing in order to delay the process of settling the same. Such course adopted by the respondent cannot be accepted, according to the learned senior counsel. A memo stating the pending invoices for settlement by the respondent Board has also been filed to substantiate the case of the petitioner.