Consumer Cases Monthly Digest: July 2024
Apoorva Pandita
9 Aug 2024 1:45 PM GMT
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) granting relief to two companies who had purchased cars from luxury car company Mercedes-Benz for the use of their directors. A bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal was dealing with appeals arising out of a case of a car developing heating issues and another case of an accident wherein the airbags of the car did not deploy.
Case Title – M/S Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 447
Orissa High Court
Case Title: The Chief Manager-cum-Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Jharsuguda v. Rajesh Kumar Agrawal & Anr.
The Orissa High Court has held that the Consumer Commissions do not have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding which is subject matter of adjudication by Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) or Appellate Tribunal under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act').
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Failure To Provide SMS Alerts For Unauthorized Transactions, NCDRC Holds HDFC Bank Liable
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Dr Inderjit Singh (Presiding Member) held HDFC Bank liable for failure to resolve the Complainant's grievances pertaining to multiple unauthorized transactions. Further, it failed to ensure SMS alert service for amount deduction.
Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd. vs Satish Baishya
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 57 of 2024
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Consumer Forums Can't Entertain Complaints Involving Allegations Of Embezzlement: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench of J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition filed against the postal department pertaining to the confiscation of the Complainant's recurring deposit account due to allegations of embezzlement. The NCDRC held that such disputes require a detailed examination of evidence and do not fall within the jurisdiction of the consumer fora.
Case Title: Vineet Kumar Dixit vs Senior Superintendent of Post Offices and Anr.
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 3383 of 2017
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that vague terms in an insurance contract should be interpreted in favour of the insured party in the event of a dispute.
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Santha Kumari
Case Number: F.A. No. 204/2022
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that two separate claim forms cannot be filed by the insured for the same occurrence as they do not change the nature of the occurrence and loss.
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/S. S. P. Singla Construction Pvt. Ltd
Case Number: F.A.No. 943/2016
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Non-Standard Basis Of Insurance Claim Is Fair If Breach Has Occured From Both Parties: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the justification of an insurance claim on a non-standard basis is deemed fair when breaches have occurred from both parties.
Case Title: Kuljit Kaur Vs. Cholamandlam Ms. General Insurance Co. Ltd
Case Number: R.P. No. 925/2019
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Dr Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) held New Delhi Institute of Management Studies liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for misleading a student into joining its MBA course with the false assurance that the course was being offered in association with Madhuraj Kamraj University.
Case Title: New Delhi Institute of Management Studies vs Shamaneshwaram and 2 Ors.
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 346-347 of 2019
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench of Justice A.P. Sahi (President) held DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failure to execute the plot-buyer's agreement and subsequently, cancelling the booking after charging excessive forfeiture amount.
Case Title: Kuldeep Singh and Anr. vs DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No. 1937 of 2017
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench of Shri A.K. Tiwari (Acting President) and Dr Srikant Pandey (Member) dismissed an appeal against LIC based on the fact that the deceased insured had suppressed material facts regarding her health and had declared herself 'healthy' even though she was receiving treatment at a hospital.
Case Title: Hariram Singh Kushwaha vs Life Insurance Corporation of India
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1442 of 2019
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench of Shri A.K. Tiwari (Acting President) and Dr. Shrikant Pandey (Member) held that a surveyor's report in insurance claims holds significant evidentiary value and cannot be disregarded without valid reasons. Subsequently, the bench dismissed an appeal against Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company, as it had already paid the amount determined by the surveyor.
Case Title: Alok Khandelwal vs Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company and Others
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1303 of 2017
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana bench of Justice T.P.S. Mann (President), Mr S.P. Sood (Member) and Mrs Manjula (Member) held ADAMA India Pvt. Ltd., a pesticide manufacturer, and its Seller liable for delivering defective pesticides which led to approximately 70%-80% damage to the Complainant's crops.
Case Title: ADAMA India Pvt. Vs Jitender and Anr.
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1267 of 2018
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench of Ms Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member) held National Insurance Company Limited liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid accidental claim based on exceeding seating capacity of 6 against the permissible limit of 5 passengers in the vehicle. It was held that there were two minors inside the vehicle at the time of the accident, who were considered as 'one unit'. Therefore, there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Case Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. vs Kanchan Paliyal and Anr.
Case No.: 19.07.2024
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench of Shri A.K. Tiwari (Acting President) and Dr Srikant Pandey (Member) held that acts of unauthorized use of electricity and offences under Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Case Title: M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran and Anr. vs Smt. Renu Sikarwar
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1643 of 2023
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench of Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member) and Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) held that consumer forums cannot entertain complaints filed by a consumer or any person against the assessment made under Section 126 or action taken under Sections 135-140 of the Electricity Act, 2003
Case Title: Vijay Kumar vs Executive Engineer, Electricity and Anr.
Case No.: Appeal No. 218 of 2018
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh State Commission Holds LIC Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Valid Claim
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh bench of Mr Sushil Kumar (Presiding Member) and Mrs Sudha Upadhyay (Member) held 'Life Insurance Corporation of India' (LIC) liable for wrongfully repudiating a genuine insurance claim based on the policyholder's failure to avail the accidental coverage after attaining majority by paying an additional amount. It was held that the policyholder passed away before the next due date of the premium instalment and therefore, the repudiation was unjustified.
Case Title: L.I.C. vs Smt. Shanti Singh
Case No.: First Appeal No. A/2005/177
Delhi State Commission
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki, dismissed a complaint against Oriental Insurance Ltd., citing the presence of a limitation clause. It was further held that consumer complaints are time-barred and need to be filed within two years from the date of the action unless sufficient reasons are present.
Case Title: M/S Dialmaz Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
Case Number: C.C. No. 295/2016
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Mr J.P. Agrawal (Member) held 'Ansal Housing Ltd.' liable for deficiency in service for failure to deliver a flat within the stipulated contractual period. The bench held that reasons such as 'demonetization' and court orders banning groundwater extraction were insufficient to justify the delay.
Case Title: Mr Vikas Jain and Anr. vs Ansal Housing Ltd.
Case No.: Complaint Case No. 146/2022
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench of Ms Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member) held that deciding a time-barred complaint on merits would be illegal and consumer fora must assess the limitation period before admitting the complaint. The order of the Haridwar District Commission was set aside for deciding a time-barred complaint on merits.
Case Title: Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Anr. vs Smt. Umesh
Case No.: First Appeal No. 113/2022
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
West Bengal State Commission
The West Bengal State Commission, presided by Mr. Subhra Sankar Bhatta and Mr. Nityasundar Trivedi, overturned a decision by the District Commission and held Canon India liable for deficiency in service for not providing free repair service within warranty period. It was also held the District Commission erred in its judgement by drawing conclusions contrary to the evidence curtailing justice and undermining neutrality.
Case Title: Santanu Roy Chowdhury Vs. M/S Canon India Pvt Ltd.
Case Number: F.A. No. A/285/2019
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi State Commission Holds Emaar MGF Liable For Failure To Deliver Flat Within Stipulated Time
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Mr J.P. Agrawal (Member) held 'Emaar MGF Land Ltd.' liable for deficiency in service for failure to deliver possession of a flat within the stipulated time. Emaar was also held liable for arbitrarily cancelling the flat and forfeiting the amount paid by the buyers.
Case Title: Mrs Jakkidi Lakshmi Reddy and Anr. vs Emaar MGF Land Limited
Case No.: Complaint Case No. 145/2020
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) held 'Shriram General Insurance Company' liable for repudiating a personal accidental claim based on the fact that the insured owner was not himself driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. It was held that the policy insured the deceased owner and he was well within his rights to appoint another person as the driver.
Case Title: Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs Rateshwari Devi and Others
Case No.: First Appeal No. 13/2022
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 Swiggy liable for unilateral deduction of half amount for undelivered products during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was held that while it was not liable for delivery disruptions given the special pandemic circumstances, the deduction of the amount from the Complainant's payment amounted to unfair trade practice.
Case Title: Sh. Vishal Gupta vs Swiggy and Others
Case No.: Appeal No. 2 of 2024
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench of Ms Gita Verma (Presiding Member) and Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) held 'Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company' liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid claim based on the non-disclosure of a pre-existing illness. It was held that the Insurance Company failed to discharge the burden of proof that the deceased had knowingly concealed a pre-existing illness.
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance vs Abhay Kumar
Case No.: First Appeal No. A/58/2021
West Bengal State Commission
Not Obtaining Written Consent Before Treatment Is Medical Negligence: West Bengal State Commission
Case Title: Dr. Prasenjit Das Vs. Smt. Aditi Sarkar(Minor)
The West Bengal State Commission, presided by Justice Manojit Mandal, held a doctor liable for deficiency in service by committing medical negligence by not obtaining written consent from the patient before the treatment.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ganesh Dass Nagpal and Anr. vs Air India and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana) bench of Neena Sandhu (President) and Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member) held Air India liable for deficiency in services for its failure to refund the ticket price following the cancellation of flights due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana)
Case Title: Vikram vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) bench of Jagdeep Singh (President), Rajni Goyat (Member) and Amita Agarwal (Member) held New India Assurance Company liable for wrongful repudiation of a genuine claim under Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyayay Pashu Beema Yojna (Govt. of Haryana) due to a clerical error.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi (Karnataka)
Case Title: Mr. Agam R vs M/s. Myntra Designs Private Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi (Karnataka) bench of Sunil T. Masaraddi (President) and Sujata B. Koralli (Member) held Myntra and Titan liable for deficiency in services for delivering a different branded watch instead of Tommy Hilfiger and subsequently failing to refund the money.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vellore (Tamil Nadu)
Case Title: K. Sigamani vs The Tahsildar, Taluk Office and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vellore (Tamil Nadu) bench of Meenakshi Sundaram (President) and Asghar Khan (Member) held the Tahsildar of Anaicut Taluk village and the District Collector of Sathuvachari District, Vellore, liable for deficiency in services for their failure to measure the property of the Complainant despite the Complainant paying necessary fees on three occasions.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh)
Case Title: Mutchakarla Naidu vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) bench of G Venkateswari (President), P Vijaya Durga (Member) and Karaka Ramana Babu (Member) held ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for acting in bad faith while dismissing a genuine insurance claim and for taking an inconsistent stance throughout the proceedings.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana)
Case Title: Sumit Pannu vs Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) bench of Jagdeep Singh (President), Rajni Goyat (Member) and Amita Agarwal (Member) held Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized service centre liable for negligence and unfair trade practices due to their failure to repair a smartphone with manufacturing defects.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (Kerala)
Case Title: Ajesh Kumar V.V. vs Adithya Birla Health Insurance Company Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (Kerala) bench of Ravi Susha (President), Molykutty Mathew (Member) and Sajeesh K.P. (Member) held Aditya Birla Health Insurance liable for deficiency in services due to its repudiation of a genuine claim without providing substantiating medical reports on alleged pre-existing conditions.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana)
Case Title: Kiran Malhotra vs AEGON & Religare Life Insurance Company Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench of Sanjeev Jindal (President) and Jyoti Siwach (Member) held AEGON & Religare Life Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for repudiating a genuine medical claim despite receiving all necessary documents from the insured.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana)
Case Title: Umed Kumar vs Flipkart Internet Private Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) bench of Jagdeep Singh (President), Rajni Goyat (Member) and Amita Agarwal (Member) held Flipkart liable for deficiency in services for failure to display the name, address, and contact details of sellers and failure to return the defective product provided to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi (Karnataka)
Case Title: Melwin D'Mello vs Bank of Baroda
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi (Karnataka) bench of Sunil T. Masaraddi (President) and Sujata B. Koralli (Member) held Bank of Baroda liable for deficiency in service for prematurely closing the fixed deposit of an NRI customer and erroneously adjusting it against another customer's loan account.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka)
Mysore District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Case Title: Nandini C.S. vs The Manager (Legal), M/s ICICI Lombard Gen
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka) bench of A.K. Naveen Kumari(President), M.K. Lalitha (Member) and Maruthi Vaddar (Member) dismissed a complaint against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company for a personal accident cover, as the deceased driver was driving a borrowed vehicle. There was a lack of consumer-service provider relationship between the Insurance Company as the insurance policy was in the name of another insured person.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh)
Case Title: Jamana Vinay Kumar vs Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) bench of G Venkateswari (President), P Vijaya Durga (Member) and Karaka Ramana Babu (Member) held Amazon and its seller liable for deficiency in services due to their failure to facilitate the return of a product despite promising to do so.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai (Maharashtra)
Case Title: M/s. Sumit Tours & Travels vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai (Maharashtra) bench of P.G. Kadu(President), G.M. Kapse (Member) and S.A. Petkar (Member) held Bajaj Allianz General Insurance liable for deficiency in services due to the repudiation of a genuine claim of theft. The bench noted that the driver took reasonable care in safeguarding the vehicle, absolving the Complainant of negligence.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tiruvannamalai (Tamil Nadu)
Case Title: Mr. S. Diwakar vs Zoomcar India Private Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tiruvannamalai (Tamil Nadu) bench of K. Ganesan(President) and R. Vijaya (Member) held Zoom Car liable for deficiency in services for providing a malfunctioning car to the Complainant, coupled with negligence in offering timely assistance and mishandling the situation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka)
Mysore District Commission Holds Kotak Mahendra Insurance Co Liable For Dishonouring Policy Terms
Case Title: P. Shantharamu vs M/s. Kotak Mahendra Life Insurance Company Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka) bench of Smt. A.K. Naveen Kumari(President), Smt. M.K. Lalitha (Member) and Sri. Maruthi Vaddar(Member) held Kotak Mahendra Life Insurance Co. liable for failure to honour policy terms which stipulated a 20% refund of the premium amount on withdrawal after 3 years of availing the policy.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka)
Case Title: Sri. Sreejith vs The Manager, Royal Enfield Global and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka) bench of A.K. Naveen Kumari (President), M.K. Lalitha (Member) and Maruthi Vaddar (Member) held Royal Enfield and its dealer liable for deficiency in services due to delivering a Himalayan Granite bike with a petrol leak tank and smoke emanating from the engine. They further failed to initiate a refund or replace the bike.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi (Karnataka)
Case Title: Sangamnath Murgeppa Kardeguddi vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi (Karnataka) bench of A.S. Sadalage (President) and S.S. Kadrollimath (Member) held Oriental Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for repudiating a genuine hospital claim without providing valid reasons.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka)
Case Title: K. Venkatasubbaiah vs Manager, State Bank of India
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Shivarama K (President) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held State Bank of India liable for deficiency in services due to its failure to safeguard the FD account of a customer which resulted in unauthorized transactions amounting to Rs. 25,000/-.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Urban Bangalore
Case Title: B.S. Sathya Kumar and Ors. vs HDFC Ergo Health Insurance Ltd and Ors.
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Urban Bangalore bench of Shivarama K ((President) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held HDFC Ergo Health Insurance liable for deficiency in services for rejecting a genuine claim based on a pre-existing condition without substantiating it with medical evidence.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
Deduction Of Instalments After Loan Settlement, Shimla District Commission Holds ICICI Bank Liable
Case Title: Bhadur Singh Pundir vs ICICI Bank Tower and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Dr Baldev Singh (President) and Ms Janam Devi (Member) held ICICI Bank liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for deduction of loan instalments even after receiving full repayment and failure to issue a 'No Dues Certificate'.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Case Title: Mr Syed Javed Akhtar Zaidi vs M/s. Indigo Airlines
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Indigo Airlines liable for deficiency in services for delivering checked-in baggage after 18 days of the flight's landing. It also failed to provide real-time updates to the aggrieved passenger.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka)
Mysore District Commission Holds Flipkart Liable For Failure To Honour T&C For Mobile Exchange Offer
Case Title: Karthik H.K vs Flipkart Internet Private Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka) bench of A.K. Naveen Kumari (President), M.K. Lalitha (Member) and Maruthi Vaddar (Member) held Flipkart liable for wrongly deducting Rs. 600/- from the exchange value of an old phone, even after an increased exchange value was promised in its advertisement of the mobile exchange offer.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana)
Case Title: Naresh Kumar vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance & others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) bench of Jagdeep Singh (President), Rajni Goyat (Member) and Amita Agarwal (Member) held Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and its agent liable for deficiency in services for repudiating a genuine claim on technical grounds without valid reasons.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala)
Change In Colour Of Garment Ordered, Thiruvananthapuram District Commission Holds Ajio Liable
Case Title: S. Mini vs AJIO
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) bench of P.V. Jayarajan(President), Preetha G Nair (Member) and Viju V.R. (Member) held Ajio liable for deficiency in services for failure to replace or issue a refund for a kurtha that experienced a colour change subsequent to washing.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala)
Failure To Repair TV Under Warranty, Thiruvananthapuram District Commission Holds OnePlus Liable
Case Title: Sutanterpal Singh vs General Manager, One Plus Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) bench of P.V. Jayarajan (President), Preetha G Nair (Member) and Viju V.R. (Member) held OnePlus liable due to its failure to repair the television despite it being within the warranty period.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Case Title: K. Srinivasa Reddy vs PuR Energy Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi(President), C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and D. Madhavi Latha(Member) held PuR Energy Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized dealer liable for deficiency in services for failing to rectify the battery issues of the electric scooter with manufacturing defects.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Karnataka)
Case Title: Nakul Munjal vs Yatra Online Private Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of M. Shobha (President), K. Anita Shivakumar (Member) and Suma Anil Kumar (Member) held Yatra Online liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for hotel bookings that were cancelled and re-allotted, which were not up to the satisfaction of the complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Case Title: Sai Kumar vs EduBridge Learning and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi(President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held EduBridge Learning liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failing to refund the course fee after a student who was dissatisfied with the quality of services offered by the institute after attending two classes.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala)
Case Title: Praveen S. vs The Manager, Vivo and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) bench of P.V. Jayarajan(President), Preetha G Nair (Member) and Viju V.R. (Member) held Vivo and its service centre liable for deficiency in services due to its failure to repair a mobile phone under warranty. They had argued that the displayed damage resulted from physical causes outside the warranty coverage but did not provide any supporting terms or conditions.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: Preethy Gloria vs The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench of D.B. Binu (President), V. Ramachandran (Member) and Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held United India Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for failure to obtain a signed declaration form or verify facts before issuing the policy and subsequently repudiating the claim.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
Case Title: Akshay Gangadharan vs Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd Block B (Begonia)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa(President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held Flipkart liable for deficiency in services due to its failure to ship or deliver a product despite receiving payment and its failure to resolve the issue.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jhajjar (Haryana)
Case Title: Rambir and Ors. vs Punjab National Bank and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jhajjar (Haryana) bench of Dr Shahabuddin (President), Shriniwas Khundia (Member) and Veena Ranil (Member) held Oriental Bank of Commerce and Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in services due to their failure to disburse insurance amount under the Rupay Card Holder Scheme. The scheme provided accidental coverage to the cardholder.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Delivery Of Different Sofa, Failure To Refund, Hyderabad District Commission Holds Pepperfry Liable
Case Title: Kotti Nagasri vs The Authorized Signatory, Pepperfry Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Pepperfry liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for delivering a 19-inch sofa instead of the 35-inch sofa ordered by the Complainant and for refusing the return or refund.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Rangaswami vs M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held Eureka Forbes liable for deficiency in services failing to rectify issues with a defective vacuum cleaner, even when the period of warranty was ongoing.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Central Kolkata (West Bengal)
Case Title: Snehasish Chakraborty vs SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Central Kolkata (West Bengal) bench of Sukla Sengupta (President) and Reyazuddin Khan (Member) held SBI Credit Card Services liable for deficiency in services for debiting the amount from the Complainant's account despite the transaction being cancelled.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka)
Case Title: Sujana Sathendran and ors vs Clear Trip Pvt Ltd and Anr.
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Shivarama K (President) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held Air India and Cleartrip liable for deficiency in services for failure to inform the Complainants promptly about the cancellation of their flight which resulted in inconvenience to them.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka)
Case Title: Mr K. Velu vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), V. Anuradha (Member) and Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for increasing the annual insurance premium by more than 15% by just changing the existing policy's name.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (Punjab)
Case Title: Suresh Kumar vs RBL Bank Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (Punjab) bench of Harveen Bhardwaj (President), Jyotsna (Member) and Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member) held RBL Bank liable for deficiency in services for charging a membership fee, late fee, and other charges despite the Complainant reporting that the credit card was lost and should be blocked.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka)
Case Title: Chetan Stanely Crasta vs HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Shivarama K (President) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held 'HDFC ERGO Health Insurance Co.' liable for deficiency in services. The bench held that rejecting a legitimate claim on the grounds of a pre-existing medical condition, discovered later and not intentionally withheld by the insured, was unjustified and constituted a breach of service standards.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana)
Case Title: Supriti vs Skechers Retail India Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana) bench of Dr Neelima Shangla (President), Ramesh Kumar (Member) and Neelam(Member) held Skechers liable for deficiency in services for selling a pair of shoes that started to deteriorate within a short span of time.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
Case Title: Mrs Tahara vs M/s Udupi Garden Restaurant and Ors.
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held a restaurant liable for deficiency in services for serving cold, stale, and tasteless food, resulting in health complications for the consumer.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Case Title: Karan Tibrewala vs Singapore Airlines and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Singapore Airlines liable for deficiency in services due to improper verification of a passenger's vaccination status, which subsequently led to her denial of entry in Singapore.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (Punjab)
Case Title: Twinkle vs Fashion Insta by Shanaya
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (Punjab) bench of Harveen Bhardwaj (President), Jyotsna(Member) and Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member) held an Instagram page, '@fashion_insta_by_shanaya', liable for deficiency in services for delivering a defective shirt to the Complainant and failing to reply to the grievances raised by the Complainant.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka)
Bangalore District Commission Holds Body Fit Chairs Liable For Selling Malfunctioning Massager
Case Title: Dr Sonali R. vs Manager, Body Fit Chairs
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Shivarama K (President) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held Body Fit Chairs liable for deficiency in services for selling a malfunctioning body massager that caused pain and inconvenience to the customer. Body Fit Chairs Pvt. Ltd. provides massage and relaxation products in India.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Central Kolkata (West Bengal)
Case Title: Kapil Deo Singh vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Central Kolkata (West Bengal) bench of Sukla Sengupta (President) and Reyazuddin Khan (Member) held National Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for repudiating a genuine claim based solely on the delayed notification of the stolen car by the insured. The bench held that mere delay in informing the Insurance Company should not invalidate the claim, particularly when the claim is genuine.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of Sri B. Narayanappa (President), Smt. Jyothi N (Member) and Smt. Sharavathi S.M (Member) held 'Aditya Birla Finance' liable for deficiency in service for charging a late fee for a loan payment despite receiving the full amount and for its failure to close the loan account and provide resolution to the Complainant's grievances.
Case Title: Ganapati Bramha vs The Authorized Signatory, Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 234/2023
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) has held Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failing to settle the claim even after one year of the insured's death and nine months after receiving the claim application.
Case Title: Master Naman and Ors. vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr.
Case Number: CC/565/2023
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa(President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) dismissed a complaint against Apple Inc., noting that the Complainant failed to produce evidence such as tax invoice and warranty information.
Case Title: Muhammad Musharaf K vs Apple Inc.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 301/2023
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Shivarama K (President) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held Union Bank of India liable due to its failure to refund the money wrongfully debited from the complainant's bank account while attempting to withdraw from the bank's ATM.
Case Title: Sri. G. Puttaswamy vs The Manager, Union Bank of India
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 347/2023
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) has held Nykaa liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver the ordered product and only refunding the amount after one month of the order date.
Case Title: Diksha Negi vs Nykaa E-Retail Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
Case Number: CC/474/2023
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held 'Make O Toothsi Skin Centre' liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices due to its failure to provide adequate service and unnecessary delays in sessions despite receiving full payment.
Case Title: Nidhi Singh vs The Authorized Signatory, Make O Toothsi Skin
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 90/2024
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held 'Nishitha's Developers' liable for deficiency in services for its failure to deliver possession of a flat and complete the sale transaction, despite receiving substantial payment from the buyer.
Case Title: Sri. R. Ramesh Babu vs M/s Nishitha's Developers and Anr.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 77/2023
Ernakulam District Commission
The Ernakulam District Commission presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held Whirlpool India liable for deficiency in service due to selling a product with a manufacturing defect and not taking action to rectify the defects upon complaining. However, the Commission dismissed the case against Bismi Connect, citing that dealers are not responsible for manufacturing defects.
Case Title: Raviprasad P.V. Vs. Whirlpool India Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No. 22/80
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka)
Bangalore District Commission Holds Restaurant Liable For Damaging Customer's Car In Valet Parking
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), V. Anuradha (Member) and Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held a restaurant liable for deficiency in services due to the failure of its staff to drive a car properly for valet parking which resulted in damages to the vehicle.
Case Title: Mr Mukesh M. vs The General Manager, Street 1522
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 32 1/2023
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench of Shri DB Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. and Amazon liable for delivering a defective television and failing to replace it or provide a refund.
Case Title: Aneesh T.U. vs Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: C.C No. 510/2018
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
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kullu (Himachal Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kullu (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Mr Purender Vaidya (President) and Ms Manchali (Member) held that an FIR filed by an uninvolved third party cannot be used by the Insurance Company to dispute the insured's version of facts regarding the accident. As a result, National India Assurance Company was held liable for wrongful repudiation of a genuine accidental claim.
Case Title: Chhering Dolma vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: Complaint No. 14/2022
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. held Sony and its authorized Service Agent liable for restrictive trade practice and deficiency in service for failure to provide repair services on account of unavailability of spare parts for the TV purchased by the Complainant. The Complainant was instead offered to buy a new product at a special price.
Case Title: Abdul Razzak vs Sony India and Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No. 461/2019
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana bench of Shri Sanjeev Batra (President) and Ms Monika Bhagat (Member) held 'Behrouz Biryani' and Swiggy liable for delivering chicken biryani instead of veg biryani. They further failed to properly address the Complainant's grievances, which constituted a violation under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.
Case Title: Vasu Gupta vs Behrouz Biryani and Anr.
Case No.: Complaint No. 105 dated 17.03.2022
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 Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized seller liable for failure to rectify recurring issues with a newly bought Active scooter.
Case Title: Nidhi Jain vs Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Complaint Case No. CC/22/50
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II U.T. Chandigarh bench of Shri Amrinder Singh Sindhu (President) and Shri B.M. Sharma (Member) held HDFC Bank and Phoenix ARC Private Limited liable for illegally demanding outstanding amount from the Complainant w.r.t. to two credit cards wrongfully issued under her name, which she never actually used.
Case Title: Paramjit Kaur Pasricha vs HDFC Bank Ltd and Anr.
Case No.: CC No. 539/2023
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Godavari (Andhra Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Godavari (Andhra Pradesh) bench of Sri D. Kodanda Rama Murthy (President), Sri S. Suresh Kumar (Member) and Smt. KS.N.. Lakshmi (Member) held Aditya Birla Health Insurance Company Ltd. liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid health insurance claim based on pre-existing diseases. The bench noted that the Complainant disclosed all material pre-existing conditions and even paid an extra premium for it.
Case Title: Alluri Venkata Rama Raju vs Aditya Birla Capital and Anr.
Case No.: CC No. 67/2023
