National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Alerting Insurer About Renewal Of Insurance Is Bank's Responsibility: NCDRC Holds Syndicate Bank Liable For Deficiency In Service Case Title: Bank Manager, Syndicate Bank Vs. Ishwar Dayal The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held Syndicate Bank liable for deficiency in service and...
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Bank Manager, Syndicate Bank Vs. Ishwar Dayal
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held Syndicate Bank liable for deficiency in service and held that it is the responsibility of the bank to renew insurance or insist the insurer on renewing it.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Accepting Evidence Without Filing Written Statement Is Same As Allowing A Late Reply: NCDRC
Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Vs. Om Prakash Dubey
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that evidence can't be accepted without filing a written statement within 45 days. Furthermore, it was held that parties could not place retrospective reliance in appeals on judgments that are pronounced after the filing of the original complaint.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mohd Siddique Khan Vs. Forest Division Officer
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held a public auction purchaser is not a consumer, and the Opposite Party is not a service provider.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Babu Ram Vs. Sartaj Ali
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the Commission can only interfere in orders by the State Commissions and the District Forums if there is a scope of illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Consumer And Criminal Proceedings Are Distinct From Each Other with Respective Jurisdictions: NCDRC
Case Title: M/S. Kalindi Enterprises Vs. Suresh G Kumar
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the compensation granted by the consumer commission is not akin to a criminal sentence or punishment. Unlike criminal courts, which demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt for culpable offenses, consumer complaints about service deficiencies or unfair trade practices operate under different legal standards.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Parulben Shailesbhai Chunara Vs. Dr. Vinaykumar C. Sinh
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that medical opinions may vary on the appropriate course of action for treating a patient, but if a doctor follows acceptable medical practices and the court determines that they provided care with due skill and diligence, it is challenging to deem the doctor negligent even if the patient does not survive or suffers a permanent condition.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delay In Processing Revival Of Policy After Receiving Premium Is Insurer's Fault: NCDRC
Case Title: IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Bera
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that IDBI Federal Life Insurance liable for deficiency in service due to denial of revival of the policy even after receiving the premium amount from the insured.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Canon Properties Pvt Ltd. Vs. Dum Dum Club Town Residents Association
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held Canon Properties liable for deficiency in service for withholding maintenance charges from the flat owners.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Insurer Has Discretion To Reject A Surveyor's Report If It Is Arbitrary Or Unreasonable: NCDRC
Case Title: M/S. Shah Vadilal Jethalal Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, dismissed an appeal against New India Assurance, citing the complainant's failure to demonstrate any arbitrariness or perversity in the insurer's rejection of the surveyor's report.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation Of India Vs. Shubhalaxmi Shankar Shetty
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra, held Life Insurance Corporation liable for deficiency in service over invalidating an insurance case citing non-disclosure of prior non-life-threatening health conditions.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporationof India & Anr Vs. Sunil Kumar
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the terms in an insurance contract should be strictly adhered to with no scope of deviation from these terms.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: United India Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Sukh Lal Soni
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) is limited in nature and can only be exercised when the State Commission has either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or acted with material irregularity.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Insured Has A Duty To Disclose Pre Existing Aliments To Insurer : NCDRC
Case Title: Subhash Kumar Vs. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the contracts of life insurance are based on utmost good faith and the insured has a duty to disclose all material information, including pre existing ailments to the insurer.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: United India Insurance Vs. Manjula & 2 Ors.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the insurance policies should be interpreted broadly to align with reasonable expectations of the insured.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Benefit Of Doubt Must Go In Favour Of Passenger In Case Of Ambiguity In Railway Guidelines: NCDRC
Case Title: Asish Kumar Paul Vs. General Manager, Eastern Railways
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held Eastern Railways liable for deficiency in service due to treating a passenger as ticketless because of ambiguity in their own stated guidelines.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Revisional Jurisdiction Of National Commission Is Limited In Nature: NCDRC
Case Title: Primary Co-Operative Agriculture And Rural Development Bank Ltd Vs. Anantharamegowda
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the National Commission can only intervene in an order through revisional jurisdiction if the State Commission has operated beyond its legal authority, neglected to use its jurisdiction, or acted unlawfully or with material irregularity.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karur (Tamil Nadu)
Case Title: S. Sridevi and Anr. vs The Manager, Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karur (Tamil Nadu) bench of N. Pari (president) and A.S. Rathinasamy (Member) held Star Health and Allied Insurance Company liable for failure to honour a genuine insurance claim by citing pre-existing illness as a reason. The bench held that the treatment sought by the Complainant was not related to the preexisting illness and was also not excluded under the insurance policy.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala)
Case Title: Abbas M. vs Manager/Authorized Person, Doc & Mark and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala) bench of Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member) held Doc and Mark shoes and its Dealer liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for destroying the Complainant's shoes before the proceedings, which was seen as an attempt to destroy evidence and prevent the Complainant from providing defects.