Consumer Case Weekly Round-Up: September 2nd-September 9th 2023
Smita Singh
13 Sept 2023 8:45 AM IST
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) NCDRC Orders Reliance Life Insurance Company To Pay Rs 1 Crore And 50k Litigation Costs Case Title: Nirmala Devi vs Reliance Life Insurance Com Recently, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising of Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) directed Reliance Life Insurance Company to pay the...
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
NCDRC Orders Reliance Life Insurance Company To Pay Rs 1 Crore And 50k Litigation Costs
Case Title: Nirmala Devi vs Reliance Life Insurance Com
Recently, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising of Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) directed Reliance Life Insurance Company to pay the claim amount of Rs1 crore with an interest of 9% and Rs 50,000 litigation cost to the nominee of the deceased life assured (DLA). The NCDRC rejected the insurance company’s contention that the deceased policyholder had concealed material evidence in the proposal form. The NCDRC highlighted that hospitalization due to a motor vehicle accident, not reported in the proposal form, should not be considered a concealment of pre-existing illness or disease.
Case Title: Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr vs Banwari Lal Gupta
Recently, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench comprising of Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) has directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to compensate Rs. 10 Lakhs to a nominee of the deceased. The heart of the dispute revolved around whether the death was accidental or a suicide. The NCDRC concluded that the death was accidental, taking into account medical reports, police investigations, and other evidence. It observed that there was a positive presence of aluminium phosphide and ethyl alcohol in the deceased's viscera, suggesting the possibility of poisoning by unknown persons.
NCDRC Holds ICICI Bank Liable For Loss Of Original Documents, Awards 25 Lakh Compensation
Case Title: Manoj Madhusudhanan vs. ICICI Bank & Anr.
Recently, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) presided by Hon’ble Mr. Subhash Chandra as the presiding member, partly allowed a consumer complaint and directed the ICICI Bank (Opposite Party no. 1) to pay compensation worth Rs. 25 Lakh for losing the original property documents of a complainant.
The case revolves around one Manoj Madhusudhanan (complainant), who had taken a housing loan of Rs. 1.86 Crore from ICICI Bank, to buy a property in Bangalore. To secure the loan, the he had submitted his original property documents, which eventually got lost while being sent to a storage facility by a courier company Bluedart (Opposite Party no. 2).
Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Coco Cola India Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ms. Deepali Sharma & Ors.
The Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Justice Prasanta Kumar Deka, with Mrs. Soneka Bora and Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh as members, ruled in favour of a consumer who found a dead fly in a bottle of sprite and directed Coca Cola India Ltd. to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II
Case Title: Arvind Kumar vs M/S Eureka Forbes
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II bench comprising of Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) directed the Eureka Forbes Ltd. to refund the full refund of the Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) cost for the complainant’s Classic Eureka Forbes Water Purifier after water purifier broke down multiple times. The District Commission held that Eureka Forbes’ failure to deliver the assured services of complete repair to the water purifier, as specified in the AMC, constituted a deficiency in service.
III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: R.G. Rammohan vs Hero Lectro
Recently, the III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Shivarama K (President) and Chandrashekhar S Noola (Member) held Hero Lectro (Division of Hero Cycles Ltd.) liable of deficiency in service for manufacturing defect in an e-cycle purchased by the complainant. The bench noted that despite raising complaints and efforts at repair by the complainant, the defect still persisted, therefore, the recurring nature of the defect indicated a manufacturing defect.
Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: N.D. Vinaya Kumar and anr. vs PhonePe Private Limited
Recently, the Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Shivarama. K (President), Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held PhonePe liable of deficiency of service and unfair trade practices. The bench noted that PhonePe being an intermediary platform for transaction between the two customer’s bank holds an important responsibility to exercise due diligence in every transaction. The case pertain to a complainant transferring money to another individual through the PhonePe app and the complainant got a confirmation of the successful transaction but the amount wasn’t debited into the bank account of the receiver.
Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Allwyn Cyrus R vs Dell Technologies
Recently, the Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) dismissed a complaint against Dell Technologies filed for alleged deficiency in service noting that the complainant didn’t accept the discounted prices for service parts given by the company and further the bench noted that Dell Technologies was unable to provide the service because the complainant didn’t register the laptop within seven days of the purchase date on the Dell’s website.
Bangalore Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Jeevan Kulkarni vs BMS Hospital
Recently, the Bangalore Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of B. Narayanappa (President) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held BMS Hospital liable for collecting registration charges from the patients and rejected the contentions by the hospital that the registration fee served the purpose of uniquely identifying each patient, maintaining comprehensive patient records, and providing personalized healthcare.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra
Case Title: Pankaj vs Apple India Private Limited
Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala bench comprising Mr. Hemanshu Mishra (President), Ms. Arti Sood (Member) and Sh. Narayan Thakur (Member) found Apple India Private Limited deficient in service for failing to provide service to the customer who faced network connectivity and camera issues in his newly bought iPhone. The District Commission refuted Apple’s contention that the iPhone could not be fixed as it had some internal damage, rendering the device out of warranty. It was noted that Apple failed to prove that there was any prior unauthorized or authorized modification to the device.
III Additional Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: N.B. Sudheendra Rao vs Hotel Harsha
Recently, the III Additional Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprised of President Shivarama K, Members Chandrashekar S Noola, and Rekha Sayannavar held Hotel Harsha, The Fern (Bangalore) liable for providing the complainant with broken bed which cause him severe backaches and for providing a chicken burger in the meal even when the compliant asked for vegetarian food.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kerala
Case Title: Rajeev Kumar M.R. v. M/S Classic Motors
A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kerala has criticised the practice of manufacturers deliberately including conditions of a product's warranty in 'fine print' which ordinary citizens are unable to comprehend. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. said the National Consumer Commission has already held such practice as 'unfair trade practice' and urged the regulatory bodies to take action against manufacturers who engage in such practices to harm consumers.
Central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Case Title: Naveen James vs Ace Town Planners
Recently, the Central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising of Inder Jeet Singh (President), Shahina (Member) and Vyas Muni Rai (Member) held Ace Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. responsible for deficiency of services and unfair trade practices. Further, the bench noted that despite the fact that the Complainant made the regular payments for the plot, there was no progress on the site, and he had not received possession as promised.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Case Title: Dr Yatish Kumar Bansal vs Lifestyle Wedding Planner
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) ordered Lifestyle Wedding Planner based in Chandigarh to refund the advance amount paid to it for decoration services by the Complainant. The bench noted that despite the cancellation of the marriage following COVID-19 pandemic the wedding planner didn’t refund the advance amount paid by the complainant, thereby, amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: P V Ramesh Kumar And The Officer Concerned & Anr.
A Consumer Court in Bengaluru has held that ICICI Bank indulged in unfair trade practices by excessively charging a senior citizen who had closed his credit card issued by the bank, thus causing mental distress and inconvenienc. The III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer District Redressal Commission headed by President Shivrama K, partly allowed the complaint petition filed by P V Ramesh Kumar.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–II
Hyderabad Commission Holds Manipal Cigma Insurance Co For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: C. Pratap Reddy vs M/s Manipal Cigma Health Insurance Company Ltd.
Recently, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–II bench comprising of Vakkanti Narasimha Rao (President), Jawahar Babu (Member) and Madhavi Sasanakota (Member) held Manipal Cigma Health Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service for repudiating the complainant's genuine claim. The Company failed to present the actual proposal form filled by the complainant which was crucial in determining whether the complainant had indeed failed to disclose his medical history, as claimed by the insurance company.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi
Case Title: Amit Kumar Tripathi vs. M/S Reliance Retail Ltd.
Recently, a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi presided by Mr. S. S. Malhotra along with Ms. Rashmi Bansal and Mr. Ravi Kumar as members allowed a consumer complaint which brings light to the contentious issue of charging customers for carry bags in retail stores. While noting that charging for carry bags is against the interest of consumers, the District Commission held Reliance Trends liable for deficiency in service.
Chandigarh bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Case Title: Anil Dhamey vs The New India Assurance Company and anr.
Recently, the Chandigarh bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, presided over by Shri Pawanjit Singh (President) and Mrs. Surjeet Kaur (Member), ruled against a vehicle owner who had filed a consumer complaint following a road accident involving the insured vehicle. According to the District Commission, the insurance policy had not been officially transferred into the name of the vehicle owner at the time of the accident. As a result, the vehicle owner was deemed ineligible to receive the insurance amount. The insurance policy had been initially taken out by the previous vehicle owner, and in the absence of a direct contractual relationship with the insurance company, the new owner was regarded as a third party.
