State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa Insurer Not Liable For Unreasonable Delay In Claim Intimation, Goa State Commission Dismisses Appeal Against Oriental Insurance Company The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa bench comprising Mrs Varsha R. Bale (Officiating President) and Ms Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves (Member) dismissed an appeal...
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa bench comprising Mrs Varsha R. Bale (Officiating President) and Ms Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves (Member) dismissed an appeal against Oriental Insurance Company, based on an unreasonable delay on the Complainant's part while intimating the Insurance Company and submitting a repair-estimate report.
Case Title: Mr Paul Colaco vs Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: First Appeal 31 of 2023
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench of Shri AK Tiwari (Acting President) and Dr Monika Malik (Member) dismissed an appeal against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, based on the deceased's medical reports which confirmed alcohol as a contributing factor in his illness. It was held that the repudiation was valid as the illness of the deceased was not specified to be covered under the policy.
Case Title: Smt. Komesh Singh vs P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: Appeal No. 1100/2023
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh bench of Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Mr RK Verma (Member) dismissed a complaint against Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. and its dealer, Anand Toyota. It was held that the Complainant failed to substantiate the manufacturing defects with expert reports and affidavits. He also continued to extensively drive the car despite the alleged defects.
Case Title: Amit Rana vs Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 06/2018
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench Ms Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr BS Manral (Member) allowed an appeal based on the District Commission's failure to follow the proper procedure under Section 14(2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Sh. Kailash Chand Joshi
Case No.: First Appeal No. 111 of 2019
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana bench of Mr Naresh Katyal (Judicial Member) and Mrs Manjula Sharma (Member) held that in order to prove a manufacturing defect in a vehicle, an expert report is mandatorily required. Repeated repairs and recurring defects do not automatically prove the presence of a manufacturing defect.
Case Title: Hero MotoCorp Ltd. and Anr. vs Rajender Singh
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1060 of 2019
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar (President), Mr Raj Kumar Pandey (Member) and Mr Ram Prawesh Das (Member) reiterated the settled position that education institutions rendering education are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It dismissed an appeal filed against the Bihar School Examination Board for an attendance-related issue.
Case Title: Biresh Manjhi vs The Headmaster-cum-Centre Superintendent and Others
Case No.: Appeal No. 325 of 2023
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr Preetinder Singh (Member) held Raw House Fitness, a gym in Chandigarh and its trainer liable for instructing a strenuous workout to a new joinee which caused him a medical problem named 'Rhabdomyolysis'. The gym was also held liable for imposing one-sided terms and conditions via its membership agreement.
Case Title: Sh. Simranjeet Singh Sindhu vs Manager, Raw House Fitness and Anr.
Case No.: Appeal No. 161 of 2024
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench of Mr A.K. Tiwari (Presiding Member) and Mr Shrikant Pandey (Member) reiterated that when there is no 'fundamental breach' of an insurance policy, the insured can claim up to 75% of the expenses incurred on a non-standard basis from the Insurance Company. The non-standard claims are negotiated claims which cater to situations where all terms, conditions and warranties of the policy are not fully complied with.
Case Title: Rajesh Sahu vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company and Anr.
Case No.: First Appeal No. 558/2023
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench of Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd. liable for deficiency in service. The Insurance Company wrongfully repudiated a genuine medical claim under the Corona Rakshak Policy.
Case Title: Ajaychand V. vs Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No. 487/2021
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench of Shri D.B. Binu (President), Sri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Visudha Sadhu Janasangham, Thoppumpady (Kochi) liable for failure to give promised cremation benefits to its shareholders as per its binding bye-laws. The society was established for the purpose of financing the cremation of its members or their heirs.
Case Title: Mary Bonifus and Anr. vs Visudha Yousepin Jana Sangham
Case No.: C.C. No. 534/2023