'Army & Air Force Liable' : Supreme Court Awards Rs 1.5 Crore Compensation To Air Veteran Who Contracted HIV During Blood Transfusion

Case Title: CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) vs. Commanding Officers & Ors.

In a significant judgment that reaffirms the principles of upholding the dignity, rights, and well-being of armed forces personnel, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a retired Air Veteran, holding the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Indian Army jointly and vicariously liable for medical negligence. The appellant, who contracted HIV during a blood transfusion at a military hospital while falling sick on duty during Operation Parakram, has been awarded compensation amounting to 1 crore 54 lakhs 73,000.

Prioritise Cases Of HIV Positive Persons : Supreme Court Directs All Courts; Issues Directions To Centre & States To Enforce HIV Act

Case Title: CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) vs. Commanding Officers & Ors.

In a pathbreaking judgment delivered on September 26, the Supreme Court issued a series of vital directions to the Central and State Governments to ensure the effective implementation of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 (HIV Act). The Court further directed all Courts, Tribunals, and quasi-judicial bodies in the country to prioritize the cases relating to HIV-infected persons for early disposal as per the mandate of Section 34(2) of the HIV Act. The Court also directed that steps should be taken to keep the identity of HIV-infected persons anonymous. The Court passed these directions while awarding Rs 1.5 crore compensation to an ex-Indian Air Force official who contracted HIV during a blood transfusion at a military hospital. The Court held both the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force jointly and severally liable for medical negligence.

Medical Negligence & Res Ipsa Loquitur | Where Negligence Is Evident, Burden Of Proof Shifts To Hospital: Supreme Court

Case Title: CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) vs. Commanding Officers & Ors.

In a significant judgment delivered on September 26, the Supreme Court affirmed the applicability of the principle of res ipsa loquitur in the context of medical negligence cases, emphasizing its applicability in cases where negligence is evident and shifts the burden of proof onto the hospital or medical practitioners. Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself”.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

NCDRC Holds Real Estate Developer, Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. (“World One” Project) Liable For Unfair Trade Practices And Deficiency In Services

Case Title: Anshul Aggarwal vs. Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided over by Mr Subhash Chandra allowed a consumer complaint and held that real estate developer (Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd.) is liable for unfair trade practices and deficiency in services. It was found that the developer failed to hand over the possession of the flat as per the agreed terms. The residential building project “World One” was promoted without obtaining the necessary statutory approval from the Airport Authority of India (AAI). Despite the considerable passage of time, the developer failed to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, directing the developer to refund the complainant's payment of Rs 13,06,59,748/-, along with compensation in the form of simple interest at a rate of 12% per annum and litigation cost of Rs 50,000/-.

Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Medical Practitioners Not Liable For Unpredictable Events, Kerala State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Hospital

Case Title: Kumari Ivana William and ors. vs M/s Velankanni Matha Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. and others

The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by President Justice Sri. K. Surendra Mohan, along with Judicial Member Sri. Ajith Kumar D. and Member Smt. Beena Kumary, recently dismissed a complaint filed by a woman who had undergone a delivery procedure at Velankanni Matha Hospitals. The State Commission rejected her allegations of negligence against the attending doctor, which had resulted in a condition known as brachial plexus in her newborn baby. The bench ruled that such events were unpredictable, and the doctors could not be held responsible for them. Additionally, the woman failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims.

Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Uttarakhand State Commission Upholds Order Against National Insurance Company To Reimburse Loss Caused by Flood

Case Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shri Triveni Prasad Thapliyal and Anr.

The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Ms Kumkum Rani (Judicial Member II) and Ms B.S. Manral (Member) upheld the Dehradun District Commission’s order against National Insurance Company Limited for wrongfully repudiating the complainant’s claim for his house which was destroyed due to floods. The insurance company failed to prove the alleged address discrepancy in the property’s address written in the proposal form.

North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Buyer Could Not Prove Defects In Philips Juicer Mixer, North-East Delhi District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Philips India Ltd.

Case Title: Sh. Sachin Gupta vs M/s Philips India Ltd. and Anr.

The North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Surinder Kumar Sharma (President) and Ms Adarsh Nain (Member), recently dismissed a complaint against Philips India Limited. In the complaint, the buyer had contended that the Philips juicer mixer had multiple defects that were not resolved by Philips, despite numerous follow-ups with their customer care. However, the commission ruled that the responsibility of proving deficiency in service rests with the complainant, and in this instance, the buyer could not provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations against Philips.

Indore District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Unfair Trade Practice By Western Union, Indore District Commission Directs Compensation And Litigation Cost

Case Title: Harshvardhan Pande vs Western Union Financial Services

The Indore District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising of Balraj Kumar Paloda (President), Srimati Sadhna Sharma (Member) and Susri Nidhi Barange (Member) held Western Union liable of deficiency in service for an online money transfer service availed by the complainant for paying his college fees. The complainant contended that the transfer was not completed, and the money was not refunded, despite multiple attempts and communications with the company.

Ferozepur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Ferozepur District Commission Holds Nikvision Cameras Liable For Manufacturing Defective Cameras, Orders Refund Amount & Compensation

Case Title: Barjinder Singh vs. M/S Advance Technology and Anr.

The Ferozepur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Smt. Kiranjit Kaur Arora (President) and Smt. Suman Khanna (Member) held Nikvision Camera’s Private Limited responsible for manufacturing defective cameras and DRV which caused mental agony and harassment to the buyer. Nikvision was ordered to refund the amount of the cameras and pay Rs. 5k compensation to the buyer.

North-West Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Recurring Defects In New AC, North-West Delhi District Commission Orders Panasonic India To Pay Rs. 30k Compensation

Case Title: Ms. Reena vs. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

The North-West Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Sanjay Kumar (President), Nipur Chandna (Member) and Rajesh (Member), found Panasonic India Private Limited liable for manufacturing a faulty air conditioner (AC) that remained dysfunctional despite multiple attempts at repair and replacement. As a remedy, the District Commission directed Panasonic to provide the complainant with a consolidated compensation of Rs. 30,000 to ensure justice was served.

Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I

Old Car Sold As New, Chandigarh-I District Commission Holds Honda Car Ltd. And Its Authorized Dealer Lally Motors Liable For Breach Of Trust

Case Title: Anu Garg vs M/s Honda Car Ltd.

The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Honda Cars Limited and its authorized car dealer, Lally Motors, for selling an old car under false pretenses of it being new making the complaintant pay the price of a new one. The bench held Honda Cars Limited and its dealer jointly and severally liable to refund the invoice price of Rs. 8,77,050 to Garg with an interest rate of 9% per annum.

Thiruvallur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Can’t Grant Licence To Cinemas Without Elevators Or Ramps For Disabled, Thiruvallur District Commission Holds Gokulam Cinemas And District Collector Liable

Case Title: S. Suresh vs. The Manager i/c, Gokulam Cinemas

The Thiruvallur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum bench comprising S.M. Latha Maheswari (President) and P. Murugan (Member) ordered Gokulam Cinemas to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation to the complainant with disability for neither providing elevators nor ramps to the cinema, which violated the Disability Act of 2006. The bench further directed the District Collector (Tiruvallur) to take necessary action against Gokulam Cinemas.

Central Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Patient Could Not Prove Medical Negligence, Central Delhi District Commission Clears Neera Eye Centre’s Liability

Case Title: Mohd. Ayub vs Neera Eye Centre

The Central Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Inder Jeet Singh (President) and Vyas Muni Rai (Member) rejected a complaint filed against a doctor for medical negligence that resulted in alleged wrongful surgery on the complainant’s right eye. The bench emphasized the complainant's failure to provide sufficient proof of medical negligence and highlighted that the medical reports did not support the allegations made against the doctor.

Panchkula District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Deduction Of Excess Toll Tax, Panchkula Commission Holds Chandi Mandir Toll Plaza And ICICI Bank Liable, Directs Refund And Rs. 1 Lakh Compensation

Case Title: Anita Kumari vs. M/S Himalayan Express Way Ltd.

The Panchkula District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Satpal (President), Sushma Garg (Member) and Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) held Himalayan Express Way Limited and ICICI Bank liable for their unfair trade practices and ordered them to pay a total of ₹1 lakh in punitive damages to the complainant. The complaint filed before the District Commission revolved around the deduction of an incorrect toll while the complainant was travelling to Panchkula for work.

Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Central Mumbai District Commission Holds Shushrusha Citizens Co-Operative Hospital Liable For Deficiency In Service

Case Title: Jitendra Prafull Ladhani vs. Dean, Shushrusha Citizens Co-operative Hospital Limited

The Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising V.C. Premchandani (President) and M.P. Kasar (Member) held Shushrusha Citizens Co-Operative Hospital (Dadar) liable for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice for unjustly levying 15% mark-up charges for cashless hospitalization services availed by the complainant.