Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 22nd To 28th July 2024

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 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

Alcohol As Contributing Factor In Deceased's Illness, Madhya Pradesh State Commission Dismisses Appeal Against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.

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

No Expert Report To Substantiate Manufacturing Defect, Himachal Pradesh State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Toyota, Its Dealer

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

District Commission Must Refer Points Of Difference To Third Member If Two Presiding Members Don't Agree: Uttarakhand State Commission

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

Repeated Repairs Do Not Automatically Imply Manufacturing Defect, Expert Evidence Needed: Haryana State Commission Allows Hero MotoCorp's Appeal

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

Educational Institutions Are Not Covered Under Consumer Protection Act, Bihar State Commission Dismisses Appeal Against Bihar School Examination Board

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

Muscle Injury Due To Excessive Training, Chandigarh State Commission Holds Raw House Fitness, Its Gym Trainer Liable

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

In Absence Of Fundamental Breach Of Insurance Policy, Up To 75% Expenses Can Be Claimed On Non-Standard Basis: Madhya Pradesh State Commission

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)

Ernakulam District Commission Holds Future Generali India Insurance Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Genuine Medical Claim

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)

Ernakulam District Commission Holds Visudha Sadhu Janasangham Liable For Failure To Disburse Promised Cremation Benefits

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