National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC Holds Bajaj Insurance Liable For Deficiency In Service Over Wrongful Repudiation Of Insurance Claim Case Title: Vasantiben Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd Case Number: R.P. No. 1737/2017 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance...
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Vasantiben Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd
Case Number: R.P. No. 1737/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance liable for deficiency in service over wrongful repudiation of a legitimate insurance claim and overturned the State Commission's order.
NCDRC Dismisses Medical Negligence Claim Against Kims Al-Shifa Hospital
Case Title: Dr. Nayan Thara Vs. Subaida
Case Number: R.P. No. 1492/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra allowed a revision petition by the hospital and overturned the State Commission's order of deficiency in service by the hospital.
Medical Negligence: NCDRC Holds Doctors Of Fortis Hospital Liable
Case Title: Fortis Health Care (India) Ltd. Vs. Bhagchand Meena
Case Number: F.A. No. 1093/2018
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra in an appeal by Fortis Hospital held that expert evidence in medical negligence cases should be judged on a case by case basis, placing the onus on the hospital to dispute allegations of negligence.
Case Title: Nisha T.S. Vs. Cryoviva Biotech Pvt Ltd.
Case Number: F.A. No. 601/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J Rajendra dismissed a deficiency claim against Cryoviva Biotech and held that the duty to collect the disputed specimen as per the contract was on the patient and not the company.
Case Title: State Bank of India Vs. Sheetal Navnath Vaidya
Case Number: R.P. No. 1222/2023
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that a bank is bound to personally notify the customer upon discontinuation of an insurance policy entered through them.
Insured Cannot Assume Obligation On Part Of Bank To Renew Policy: NCDRC
Case Title: State Bank of India Vs. R. Vishwanatha Pai
Case Number: R.P. No. 4248/2012
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra overruled the State Commission's order against SBI and held that the insured cannot assume obligation on the bank's part to renew the policy unless agreed otherwise.
Surveyor's Report Can Only Be Rejected Only On Valid Grounds: NCDRC
Case Title: M/S. Hundi Lal Jain Cold Storage & Ice-Factory Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case Number: F.A. No. 214/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and AVM J. Rajendra in an appeal against United India Insurance held that a surveyor's report is mandatory for insurance claims and it can only be rejected on reasonable grounds.
Doctor Not Liable For Negligence If Chosen Treatment Recognized As Sound Medical Practice: NCDRC
Case Title: R. Harish Gupta Vs. Kumari Kritika
Case Number: R.P. No. 3005/2023
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that doctors are not liable for medical negligence if the disputed treatment is recognized as sound medical practice.
Insurance Policies Must Be Read Holistically: NCDRC Holds LIC Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Satwinder Kaur
Case Number: R.P. No. 95/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice A.P. Sahi and Dr. Inder Jit Singh held that insurance policies should be read inclusively to meet the reasonable expectations of the insured.
NCDRC Cannot Act As An Appellate Court To Re-Examine Facts
Case Title: Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO) Vs. Dwarka Prasad
Case Number: R.P. No. 1327/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that the NCDRC's revisional jurisdiction is limited in nature and it cannot act as an appellate body.
Case Title: Naresh Kumar Sharma & Anr Vs. ICICI Bank Limited & Anr.
Case Number: R.P. No. 1216/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra dismissed a petition against ICICI barred by limitation and held that a completed wrong becomes a continuing wrong only when the breach of duty persists.
NCDRC Upholds The Sacrosanct Nature Of Procedural Timeline Of 45 Days For Filing Written Statement
Case title: Suman Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs Lucina Land Development ltd. & Anr.
Case No: Consumer Case No. 95 of 2024
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh has underscored the importance of procedural timeline given under the Consumer Protection Act for filing of written statement. The bench observed that the initial timeline of 30 days with extension of another 15 days must be adhered to in all respects. It held that a litigant cannot be allowed even a single day beyond the 45th day for filing the written statement.
Purchases For Earning Livelihood Qualify As Commercial Purposes If Operated Solely By Others: NCDRC
Case Title: M/S. Nitesh Colour Lab Vs. M/S. Jindal Photo Film Ltd. & 5 Ors
Case Number: F.A. No. 642/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that purchases for earning a livelihood through self-employment qualify as commercial purpose if operated solely by others.
Case Title: Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mool Chand Lalwani
Case Number: R.P. No. 645/2021
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that for an insurer to deny a legitimate claim, the violations alleged by them have to constitute a fundamental breach.
Case Title: Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Vs. Rajinder Singh & Ors.
Case Number: R.P. No. 689/2023
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and AVM J. Rajendra, in a petition by Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank held that a bank's role as an intermediary does not create a privity of contract with the insurer. The bank in such cases won't be liable for the wrongs committed by the insurer.
Surveyor's Report Can Only Be Rejected On Valid Grounds: NCDRC
Case Title: M/S. Hundi Lal Jain Cold Storage & Ice-Factory Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case Number: F.A. No. 214/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and AVM J. Rajendra in an appeal against United India Insurance held that a surveyor's report is mandatory for insurance claims and it can only be rejected on reasonable grounds.
National Commission Allows Appeal By Fast Engineers In AC Installation Disputes
Case Title: Fast Engineers Vs. Deepshikha Kala Sansthan
Case Number: F.A. No. 566/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, in an appeal by Fast Engineers clarified the proportionate relief in an AC dispute and overruled the State Commission's order.
Case Title: Union Bank Of India Vs. M/S Vibhav Real Estate
Case Number: R.P. No. 1551/2023
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held Union Bank of India liable for deficiency in service owing to occurrence of unauthorized transactions.
Raising Demand For Undisputed Consumption Of Electricity Not Deficiency In Service: NCDRC
Case Title: State Bank Of India Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited
Case Number: R.P. No. 1309/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra dismissed a petition by SBI and held that electricity charges become “first due” only after a bill is issued, even though liability arises on consumption. Raising an additional demand for undisputed consumption does not amount to deficiency in service.
Case Title: Abdul Gagoor Vs. Jose K.V
Case Number: R.P. No. 1302/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that usage of subpar resources for construction amounts to deficiency in service.
Case Title: Swarna Kaur Vs. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
Case No: Revision Petition NO. 1972 OF 2016
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), (Presiding Member) upheld SBI Life Insurance's decision to reject the complainant's claims on the grounds of non-disclosure of the deceased's drug addiction before obtaining the policy.
The National Commission relied on the principle of utmost good faith, observing that the non-disclosure of relevant information can lead to a voidable insurance contract.
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Bars Non-Advocates From Appearing Before Consumer Courts
Title: ANUJ KUMAR CHAUHAN AND ANR v. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1386
The Delhi High Court has barred the practise of permitting non-Advocates or agents to appear before the Consumer Courts here on the basis of authority letters issued by lawyers, with immediate effect.
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
CCPA Fines UPSC Coaching Centre For Misleading Advertisements And Unfair Trade Practice
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs on UPSC coaching centre Shubhra Ranjan IAS for publishing misleading advertisements and indulging in unfair trade practice.
Telangana Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case title: RV Tours and travels & Anr. vs BV Sarma & Ors.
Case No: F.A. 96 of 2019
The Telangana state commission has held RV Tours and travels liable for providing substandard bus services to the complainants. The bench presided by President Meena Ramanathan and Judicial member V.V Seshubabu granted compensation to each complainant amounting to Rs. 6000/- and also litigation costs of Rs. 6000/-.
Telangana State Commission Validates Builder's Claim of Outstanding Payments
Case Title: M/s Narne Estates Pvt., Ltd. Vs. Shri Mohd. Adbul Rahim
Case Number: F.A. No. 381/2020
The Telangana State Commission, presided by Sri. V. V. Seshubabu and K. Ranga Rao allowed an appeal by Narne Estates and modified the District Commission's order. The Commission acknowledged the builder's claim of outstanding payments on behalf of the buyer and directed the buyer to clear the same.
Case Title: The CEO, SBI Card Vs. Mr.Abdul Khader
Case Number: F.A. No. 168/2019
The Telangana State Commission, presided by Smt. Meena Ramanathan And Sri. V. V. Seshubabu held State Bank of India liable for deficiency in service for collecting unaccounted funds from the customer without proper justification.
Case Title: Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs. Merugu Bhagavan Rao
Case Number: F.A. No. 832/2020
The Telangana State Commission, presided by Smt. Meena Ramanathan and Sri. V. V. Seshubabu dismissed an appeal by Hinduja Leyland Finance and held them liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for making claims against the complainant without any concrete evidence.
Case Title: T. Sanjeeva Vs. The Manager, Bajaj Finance Limited
Case Number: F.A. No. 571/2022
The Telangana State Commission, presided by Smt. Meena Ramanathan and Sri. V. V. Seshubabu dismissed an appeal against Bajaj Finance and held that collection of penal charges as per the agreement does not amount to deficiency in service.
Case Title: The Zonal Manager, LIC of India Vs. K.Nagendra Balaji
Case Number: F.A. No. 106/2022
The Telangana State Commission, presided by Smt. Meena Ramanathan and Sri. V. V. Seshubabu held Life Insurance Corporation liable for deficiency in service for wrongful repudiation of a legitimate insurance claim.
Correspondence Does Not Extend The Limitation Period: Telangana State Commission
Case Title: Pendli Sujatha Vs. Shriram City Union Finance Limited
Case Number: F.A. No. 632/2019
The Telangana State Commission, presided by Smt. Meena Ramanathan And Sri. V. V. Seshubabu dismissed an appeal as time barred and held that exchanging letters or communication does not pause or extend the statutory deadline for filing a legal complaint.
Case Title: The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Rapolu Lalitha
Case Number: F.A. No. 481/2020
The Telangana State Commission, presided by Smt. Meena Ramanathan and Sri. V. V. Seshubabu held Life Insurance Corporation liable for deficiency in service and held that the burden of proof to prove the basis for the repudiation of claim lies with the insurer.
Case Title: Smt. Govinda Rajula Radha Kumari Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited
Case Number: F.A. No. 143/2020
The Telangana State Commission, presided by Smt. Meena Ramanathan And Sri. V. V. Seshubabu held that to claim the insurance policy under accidental death, the insured's death should directly have been caused by the injury in question.
Case Title: Vadla Anjaneyulu Vs. Flipkart Internet Private Limited
Case Number: F.A. No. 732/2022
The Telangana State Commission, presided by Smt. Meena Ramanathan And Sri. V. V. Seshubabu upheld the District Commission's order in an appeal against flipkart and dismissed the complainant's demand for excessive compensation.
Case Title: The Chairman, Sri Jayarama Motors Pvt., Ltd Vs. Mohd. Shabbir
Case Number: F.A. No. 119/2020
The Telangana State Commission, presided by Smt. Meena Ramanathan And Sri. V. V. Seshubabu allowed an appeal by Sri Jayarama Motors and held that the complainant should provide clear evidence of their claims within the limitation period.
Case Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Executives Association (BNSLEA) Vs. Sri J. Sai Kumar
Case Number: F.A. No. 163/2020
The Telangana State Commission, presided by Smt. Meena Ramanathan And Sri. V. V. Seshubabu, allowed an appeal by the BSNL Executive Association and set aside the district commission's order. It was held that cancellation of a plot allotment based on failure of due payment does not amount to deficiency in service. It was further held that if the complainant urges deficiency in service, they have to provide evidence for the same.
Uttarakhand Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case title: United India Insurance Company Limited vs Sh. Manu Sharma
Case No: First Appeal No. 235 / 2019
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr. B.S. Manral (Member) held that the percentage of No Claim Bonus that has already been availed from the previous insurance company should be reduced from the claimed amount by the complainant.
Thus, the State Commission modified the amount awarded by the District Commission.
Case Title: LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Bhushan Malhotra
Case Number: F.A. No. 172/2019
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. B.S. Manral in an appeal filed by LG Electronics held that the onus to prove any deficiency in service lies with the complainant.
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Sachin Tyagi
Case Number: F.A. No. 09/2019
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Mr. M.K. Singhal and Mr. C.M. Singh held National Insurance liable for deficiency in service and upheld the District Commission's order.
Case title: United India Insurance Company Limited vs Sh. Baburam Kashyap
Case No: First Appeal No. 34 / 2023
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr. B.S. Manral, (Member) held United India Insurance Company liable for rejecting the insurance claim of the complainant as loss suffered due to heavy rain was covered under the terms of their insurance policy.
The commission relied on importance of surveyor's report and modified the compensation amount accordingly.
Case Title: National India Assurance Co. ltd vs Smt. Parwati Devi
Case number: First Appeal 254 of 2016
The Uttarakhand State Disputes Redressal Commission has held that no insurance claim for accident can be granted where the person was not holding a valid driver's license. A bench of Judicial member MK Singhal and Member CM Singh has upheld the denial of claim by National India Assurance Co. ltd. as the deceased insured was having only a learning license at the time of accident. This is a breach of the terms of the policy and also the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr vs. The Gogreen Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No: First Appeal No.105 / 2020
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Ms. Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr. B.S. Manral (Member) held that the no additional claims can be made after the complainant has accepted the insurance claim unconditionally.
Case Title: Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sh. Sachin Gupta
Case Number: F.A. No. 93/2020
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. B.S. Manral held that an insurer's rejection of the claim due to the applicable waiting period under the policy does not constitute a deficiency in service.
Case Title: Rajiv Agarwal Vs. Sh. Divesh Dhaunia
Case Number: F.A. No. 151/2018
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Mr. M. K. Singhal and Mr. C.M. Singh held a dealer responsible for the repair/ replacement of the product as the insurance was indirectly facilitated by them and the customer had already paid the insurance premium.
Case Title: Domino's Pizza Vs. Sh. Shivang Mittal
Case Number: F.A. No. 108/2022
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. B.S. Manral, remanded a matter involving Domino's Pizza back to the District Commission on the ground of irregular and inadequate examination of electronic evidence.
Case Title: General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Sh. Prem Prakash Muyal
Case Number: F.A. No. 286/2022
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Mr. M. K. Singhal and Mr. C. M. Singh, held that failure to notify a customer when 80% of the credit limit is reached, as required by TRAI rules, amounts to deficiency in service.
Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case title: Smt. Neelima Joshi vs. Sahara Group & Ors.
Case No: Appeal No. 198 of 2024
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh presided by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr. Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held that the District Commission has misapplied the decision of Supreme Court in Pinak Pani Mohanty vs Union of India as Sahara Prime City Ltd. was not party to that case.
The State Commission remanded the case to the District Commission for fresh adjudication.
Case title: New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr vs. Shubham Khattar
Case No: Appeal No. A/382/2024
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh presided by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr. Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held 'New India Assurance Company Limited' liable for rejecting the insurance policy of the complainant on the basis of unreliable evidence about alcohol consumption by the complainant.
Case title: Bajaj Allianz life insurance company Ltd. vs Sunny Bhatia & Ors.
Case No: First Appeal No. 137/2024
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh presided by Mrs. Padma Pandey Presiding (Presiding Member) and Mr. Preetinder Singh (Member) held Bajaj Allianz life insurance company liable for rejecting the insurance policy of the deceased as there was no correlation between pre-existing medical conditions and cause of death.
Case title: Max Life Insurance Company Limited vs, Mrs. Jyoti Chawla & Ors
Case No: Appeal No. 292 of 2024
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh presided by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Sh. Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held 'Max Life Insurance Company Limited' liable for rejecting the insurance policy of the deceased as there was no correlation between pre-existing medical history and reason for death.
The Commission directed the insurance company to pay ₹19,64,026/- with 9% interest. Additionally, it was ordered to pay ₹40,0000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and ₹10,000/- as litigation cost.
Andhra Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case title: Big Tree Entertainment Private Limited vs Mr. Madhira Mahendra Naga Sairam
Case No: F.A.No.305 of 2023
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh presided by Smt. C. V. S. Bhaskaram (Woman Member) and Sri B. Srinivasa Rao (Judicial Member) held that the charging of convenience fee while booking online movie tickets is completely lawful.
Further, the commission allowed the appeal of Big Tree Entertainment Private Limited as there was no deficiency in service on their part.
Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Inderjeeet Singh
Case Number: F.A. No. 15/2016
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki held ICICI Lombard General Insurance liable for deficiency in service and held that a claim cannot be rejected merely because of failure to strictly adhere to procedural formalities.
Case Title: Canara Bank Vs Sulakshana Bhattacharya & Anr
Case Number: F.A. No. 737/2014
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki held Canara Bank and Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance liable for deficiency in service for unjustifiably deducting balance amount from the complainant's account.
Case Title: Lifecell International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sharanya Sinha
Case Number: F.A. No. 532/2024
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki held Lifecell International liable for deficiency in service over misplacing the stem cell sample of the complainant's child.
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanta Devi & Ors
Case No: First Appeal No.-137/2020
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi presided by Ms. Bimla Kumari (Female Member) held National Insurance Co. Ltd liable for rejecting the insurance claim of complainant as she underwent Bariatric Surgery due to morbid obesity.
Case title: Jai Narayan vs Parsvnath developers Pvt. Ltd
Case No: Complaint Case No. 984/2019
The Delhi State Commission has held that default in delivering the commercial space by Parsvnath developers booked by the complainants is 'deficiency in service'. The bench presided by Member Bimla Kumari observed that purchasers cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period of time and thus granted adequate compensation.
Case title: Surilla Mathur vs M/s Oriental Insurance Co. ltd
Case No: First Appeal 26/2015
The Delhi State Commission has held that denial of insurance claim on the ground of pre-existing ailments is unjustified where no medical tests were conducted before issuing the policy. A bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Judicial Member Pinki has observed that common lifestyle diseases such as diabetes and hypertension cannot be treated as pre-existing diseases.
Case Title: LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mr. Chitranjan Pandey
Case No: First Appeal NO.-36/2022
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member) held LG Electronics Pvt Ltd. and Croma liable for deficiency in service as they replaced the TV display Panel without the consent of the complainant.
Delhi State Commission Holds FIITJEE Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sangeeta Goyal
Case Number: F.A. No. 141/2022
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki held FIITJEE liable for deficiency in service for collecting the full two-year fee from the complainant without making the required deposit or returning the interest.
Case Title: R.N. Azad Vs M/S Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: F.A. No. 397/2017
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki dismissed an appeal against M/S Himgiri Cars and held that breakdown of the vehicle alone does not prove service deficiency and the same has to be substantiated by evidence.
Case Title: Mr. Sanjay Sharma Vs. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited
Case Number: C.C. No. 933/2017
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki held IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance liable for deficiency in service over wrongful repudiation of a legitimate insurance claim.
Case Title: Philips Cooperative Group Housing Society (Regd No.1024) Vs Mr.D.S. Kundu
Case Number: F.A. No. 100/2020
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki held that parallel proceedings on the same issue in different forums are not permissible, as this could lead to judicial contradictions.
Case Title: Mr. Shiv Kumar Chandak Vs Fortis Hospital And Anr
Case Number: F.A. No. 203/2016
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki and Mr. J. P. Agrawal in an appeal against Fortis Hospital, held that expert evidence is fundamental in proving medical negligence.
Case Title: Mr. R.P. Phulia Vs TDI Infracorp Ltd. And Ors.
Case Number: C.C. No. 875/2018
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki held that failing to refund advances as per the terms of the agreement amounts to deficiency in service.
Case Title: Mr. Pawan Kumar Vs. North Delhi Power Limited
Case Number: F.A. No. 447/2023
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki held that the Consumer Protection Act prevails over the Electricity Act only in cases of inconsistency; complaints are limited to issues such as unfair trade practices, restrictive trade practices, deficiencies in service, or overcharging, which does not contain 'billing assessments'.
Case Title: Mr. Vikash Gupta Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Case Number: F.A. No. 432/2017
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki dismissed an appeal against BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd and held that it is reasonable for electricity providers to require payment of outstanding dues before restoring or granting a new connection.
Case Title: Mr. Jasrath Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Case Number: F.A. No. 301/2014
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki held that an insurer cannot reject a claim solely on the basis of late intimation by the insured as such an act amounts to deficiency in service.
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Virender Batra
Case Number: F.A. No. 265/2014
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki held that the insurer is mandated to appoint a surveyor to assess the loss intimated by the insurer and the failure to do so amounts to deficiency in service.
Case Title: MS. Kalpna vs Indigo Airlines
Case No: Complaint Case No.- 178/2021
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member) and Mr. J.P. Agrawal (General Member) dismissed the complaint against Indigo Airlines for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, holding the complainant responsible for failing to carry the required documents for immigration.
Case title: Imroz Ahmed khan vs Cosmos Infra Engineering (I) Ltd.
Case number: Complaint Case No. 123/2013
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Cosmos Infra Engineering (I) ltd. liable for providing deficient services with respect to construction and possession of an apartment under a housing project. A bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Member Pinki has ordered the developer to refund the amount of Rs. 16,76,700 which was paid by the complainant for the apartment. Rs. 1,00,000 has been ordered to be paid as compensation for mental agony and harassment. Rs. 50,000 has also been awarded as litigation expenses.
Case Title: Mrs. Anita Raheja Vs. M/S Parsvnath Developers Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No. 222/2021
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki dismissed a complaint against Parsvnath Developers and directed the complainant to instead join the ongoing class suit before the National Commission.
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Devmani Bansal & Anr.
Case Number: F.A. No. 492/2023
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki held that Bariatric surgeries for chronic diseases is a life saving procedure and cannot be excluded from standard policy terms.
Case Title: Ms. Ramesh Kumari Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case Number: F.A. No. 315/2018
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal And Ms. Pinki held that the insurer can reject the insurance claim if the insured has not complied with the policy terms stated.
Case Title: State Bank of India Vs. Mr. Vikas Jain
Case Number: F.A. No. 39/2015
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki and Mr. J. P. Agrawal held that banks are legally obligated to ensure the safety of the customers' accounts and failing to do so amounts to deficiency in service.
Agent Does Not Come Under The Ambit Of 'Consumer': Delhi State Commission
Case Title: Rajat Jain Vs. M/S. Indepay Network Private Limited
Case Number: F.A. No. 10/2023
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki held that an agent shares a relationship with the principal and this role is excluded from the definition of 'Consumer'.
Case title: Majestic Graphic and Machinery India Pvt. Ltd. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case number: Complaint Case 484/2013
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that denial of insurance claim by “United India Assurance Co. ltd.” is valid where the insured person violates the terms of insurance policy. A coram of President Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Judicial member Pinki held that non-submission of requisite and essential documents ,as per the terms of policy, by the Complainant for due assessment of claim would constitute a breach of insurance contract.
Delhi State Commission Holds Airbnb India liable For Cancellation Of Confirmed Booking
Case Title: Airbnb India Private Ltd. vs Mr. Varun Mirchandani
Case No: First Appeal No.- 486/2023
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member) held Airbnb India Private Ltd. liable for cancellation of confirmed international booking just few days before the arrival.
Goa Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case title: HDFC bank vs Fawia Menezes Mesquita
Case number: First Appeal 27 of 2024
The Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that HDFC bank cannot be held liable for cyber fraud when the said fraud happened due to negligent acts of the complainant. A coram of Officiating President Mrs. Varsha R Bale and Member Ms. Rachna Gonsalves expressed concerns regarding the increase in cyber frauds and emphasized on the need to have a robust digital infrastructure for detecting such fraudulent acts.
Kerela Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kerela State Commission Holds FIITJEE Liable For Deficiency In Services And Unfair Trade Practices
Case Title: FIITJEE Ltd. vs Master George Joseph Pynadath
Case No: First Appeal No. A/814/2017
The Kerela State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Mr. Justice Sri. B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), Mr. Sri. Ajith Kumar. D (Judicial Member) and Sri. Radhakrishnan. K. R (Member) held FIITJEE Ltd. liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices as it failed to fulfil its promise.
Idukki District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case title: Lalu Joseph vs The Authorised Signatory, Claims Department, Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd
Case No: CC NO.183/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki presided by Sri. C. Sureshkumar (President) and Sri. Ampady K.S. (Member) held Star Heath and Allied Insurance Company liable for grave deficiency in service as they denied the claim of the complainant due to insufficient document.
Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case title: Asifa Begum vs General manager, Fear Deal tata motors & Ors.
Case number: Consumer complaint 24/2023
The Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Jammu & Kashmir) has held Reliance General Insurance company liable for repudiating the genuine insurance claim of the complainant in an unreasonable manner. The bench presided by President Peerzada Qousar Hussain and Member Nyla Yaseen has observed that non-settlement of claims without any valid grounds and failure to comply with standards and guidelines amounts to 'deficiency in service'.
Thrissur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Thrissur District Commission Holds State Bank Of India Liable For Delay In Delivery Of Debit Card
Case title: James E.P. vs. Branch Manager, SBI Thrissur Civil Station.
Case No: Complaint Case No. 9/23
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur presided by Sri. C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja. S. (Member) and Sri. Ram Mohan R. (Member) held the SBI branch of Thrissur Civil Station liable for deficiency in service due to delay in delivery of debit card.
Case title: Mithun C.G vs Avaran Associates & ors.
Case No: CC 01/16
Thrissur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held the manufacturer Piaggio vehicle pvt ltd and dealer Avaran associates liable for uneven wear and tear in a Vespa VX 125 Scooter and consequent failure to repair the same. A bench presided by Member Sri. Ram Mohan R. observed that the said defect is a neglect of consumer rights by the company and thus granted compensation amounting to Rs. 25,000 for hardship and agony undergone by the complainant. An amount of Rs. 10,000 was further directed to be paid towards litigation expenses.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Charging More Than Displayed Tag Price: Delhi District Commission Holds Siyaram Silk Mills Liable
Case title: Mohit Sood vs Siyaram Silk Mills
Case number: Consumer complaint 10/2020 [District Commission, North]
The Delhi district commission has held Siyaram Silk Mills liable for unfair trade practice by charging an amount above the displayed tag price. A bench headed by President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar and Member Ashwani Kumar Mehta has granted compensation amounting to Rs. 25000/- for mental agony and harassment caused on account of deficient services by the company.
Complaints Of Banking Frauds Not Maintainable Before Consumer Forum: Delhi District Commission
Case title: Rajesh Handa vs ICICI bank
Case number: CC 525 of 2024 [Delhi district, West]
The Delhi district commission has held that cyber frauds such as unlawful bank debit transactions are not within the purview of consumer forums. A bench comprising of President Sonica Mehrotra, Member Richa Jindal and Member Anil Kumar has observed that such allegations of fraud and cheating require detailed investigation and cannot be decided by consumer commissions in their summary procedure.
Case title: Gurjas Singh Chhabra vs Extra Marks
Case No: Complaint Case 121/2022 [ Delhi district commission, Central district]
The Delhi district commission has held Extra Marks company liable for retaining the advance fee of entire course and not refunding the same for unutilised portion of services. The bench presided by President Inder Jeet Singh and Member Rashmi Bansal condemned the practice of coaching institutes collecting lump sum fees for services which are yet to be rendered by them.
Case Title: Nikhil Jain vs. Emami Limited
Case No: Complaint Case No. 53/27.02.2013
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Delhi bench of Shri Inder Jeet Singh (President) and Ms Rashmi Bansal (Member) held Emami Ltd. liable for unfair trade practices and misleading advertisement claiming to give fairer skin within three weeks.
Case Title: Laxmi vs ESI hospital and ors.
Case No: CC 244/2017 [Delhi district commission, North-West]
The Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has dismissed a case of medical negligence against Employee State Insurance hospital and its surgeons for an unsuccessful tubectomy operation. The bench observed that in the absence of any medical expert evidence, no negligence can be attributed to the doctors. It also emphasized on the possibilities of unwanted pregnancies despite taking all precautions since sterilization processes are not 100% safe and secure.
Delhi District Commission Holds Travel Agency Liable For Withholding Advance Amount Of Customer
Case Title: Rita Khastgir vs. Kesavi tours & travels
Case number: Complaint Case 202/2023
The Delhi District Commission has held that not refunding the advance trip amount to the complainant even when the complainant did not avail the services of the agency amounts to unfair trade practice. The bench comprising of President Sonica Mehrotra, Member Richa Jindal and Member Anil Kumar Koushal has ordered the refund amount of Rs. 75000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/- to be paid to the complainant.
Case Title: Arun Kumar Takkar vs. The Body Care & Anr.
Case No: Complaint Case No. 350/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of West Delhi bench of Ms. Sonica Mehrotra (President), Ms. Richa Jindal (Member) and Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal (Member) rejected the complaint of deficiency in service filed against Body Care as no relief provided by the respondent does not constitute negligence.
Delhi District Commission Holds Tata SIA Airlines Liable For Damaging Baggage Of The Complainant
Case title: Manan Batra vs M/S Tata SIA airlines ltd.
Case number: Complaint Case 129/2023
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission headed by President Monika A.Srivastava and Member Kiran Kaushal has held Tata SIA airlines liable for damaging the baggage of the complainant. A compensation of Rs. 10,000 has been ordered to be paid towards damage and stress caused to the complainant.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ernakulam District Commission Holds Dry Cleaners Liable For Damaging Churidars
Case Title: Eapen John Vs. M/s. Jose Brothers Dry Cleaners
Case Number: C.C. No. 803/2023
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held that without opposing evidence from the other party, the claims are unchallenged and in favour of the complainant.
Case Title: Nithin Ramakrishnan Vs. Bajaj Finserv Ltd
Case Number: C.C. No. 278/2023
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., in a complaint against Bajaj Finserv held that persistent calls despite requests to stop, constitute harassment and is an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case title: Renu Bala vs New India Assurance Co. ltd & Ors.
Case number: CC/55/2024
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that forcing the complainant insured person to accept only Rs.16,50,000 as full and final settlement as against the insured value of Rs. 22,00,000 would constitute unfair trade practice by New India Assurance Co. ltd. The bench of Presiding member Padma Pandey and Member Preetinder Singh has observed that such acts including repudiation of genuine claim of the complainant are contrary to the principle of insurance which mandates insurance companies to act in good faith. Directions were passed to pay the full insured value of Rs. 22 lakhs. Rs. 1 lakh has been awarded as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Further costs amounting to Rs. 33,000 has been ordered to be paid as litigation expenses.
Anantapur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Chinthapanti Siva Sankar Reddy vs The Shriram General Insurance Company Limited
Case No.: C.C. No. 34/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Anantapur (Andhra Pradesh) bench of Smt. M. Sreelatha (President), Kum. D. Grace Mary (Member) and Sir B. Gopinath (Member) held 'Shriram General Insurance Company Limited' liable for deficiency in service for its failure to settle a valid claim amount assessed under IRDA approved survey findings.