Annual Digest of Consumer Cases 2023: Part-I
Apoorva Pandita
10 Jan 2024 11:25 AM IST
Supreme Court Negligence By Doctor | Insurer Liable To Reimburse Compensation To Complainant To The Extent Of Its Liability Under The Policy: Supreme Court Case Title: Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan v Prem Prakash Rajagaria & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 344 The Supreme Court has held that in a case of negligence committed by Doctor, the Insurance Company which covered...
Supreme Court
Case Title: Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan v Prem Prakash Rajagaria & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 344
The Supreme Court has held that in a case of negligence committed by Doctor, the Insurance Company which covered the Doctor would have to reimburse the compensation to the Complainant to the extent of its liability under the Policy, as against the Doctor concerned. The Bench comprising of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Dipankar Datta, while adjudicating an appeal filed in Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan v Prem Prakash Rajagaria & Ors., has declined to interfere with the finding of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that Doctors working under the Hospital were negligent. It was observed that the finding was arrived at by the NCDRC after perusing evidence and considering the report received from the AIIMS Hospital. Therefore, the conclusion with respect to negligence did not warrant any interference.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: SUMIT MANSINGKA & ANR. V. E-HOMES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya as the Presiding Member and Dr. Inder Jit Singh as a member directed the E- Homes Infrastructure to pay entire amount deposited by the complainants including Rs. 4,10,000/- incurred for purchasing stamp papers and the amount advanced by ICICI Bank along with an interest of 9% p.a. from the date of the deposit till the date of the payment. The commission was hearing a complaint filed for directing the opposite party to refund the balance principal amount along with an interest of 18% p.a. and other such reliefs.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Findings Of Surveyor Not Substantiated; Repudiation Of Insurance Claim Illegal, NCDRC
Case Name: Shyam Ferro Alloys Ltd v. New India Assurnace Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench of Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya partially allowed an original complaint and asked the opposite party (Insurer) to pay the complainant (Insured) more than what they had initially allowed in the claim. This was an original complaint filed before the National Commission by Shyam Ferro Alloys Limited (Insured) against the insurer to pay 1,69,79,277/- INR with interest towards insurance claim and 15,00,000/- INR as compensation for business loss and metal agony.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Directs DLF Universals To Refund The Entire Amount For Delay In Handing Over Possession
Case: BALBIR SINGH DHALTA V. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS DLF INDIA LTD.) AND ORS.
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya as the presiding member and Dr. Inder Jeet Singh as member directed DLF Universal to refund the entire principal amount of Rs. 37,73,154/- to the complainant along with compensation in the form of simple interest @6% p.a. from the date of each payment till the date of refund.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Payment Of Fees And Other Transactions should be Through Online Mode: NCDRC
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has directed that payment of fees and other transactions take place through online mode only. This direction has been given vide. circular dated 09.01.2023. It is in accordance with the circular dated 07.11.2022, issued by the department of consumer affairs, govt. of India. The commission has directed that all kinds of payments of fees including disbursement of payment to the parties are to be done through digital mode only. Hence, no payment will be made through DD/ Cheque/Cash etc.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Directs The Builder To Return The Amount With Interest For The Delay
Case Name - Bahadur Singh & Ors. v. M/s Landmark Apartments Pvt. Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr. Ram Surat Ram Maurya as Presiding Member and Dr. Inder Jit Singh as Member disposed of a consumer complaint filed by a set of individuals(complainants) against M/s Landmark Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party 1) due to the inordinate delay in handing over possession of the purchased land. The complainants paid a total sum of 93,48,000/- INR as sale amount for said Shop in 'The Mall' that was going to be constructed by the opposite parties. As possession was not handed over, the complainants asked for return of the principal amount along with 18% interest on the same. Moreover, in the normal course of time, the investment of the complainants could have got returns of 1,68,26,400/- INR and all this totals up to 2,61,74,400/- INR. The OPs (Opposite Parties) have paid only Rs.65,50,612/- to the complainants and thus the complaint was filed.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya as the presiding member and Dr. Inder Jit Singh as member has directed Mahindra Lifespace Developers to pay delayed compensation on the home deposit paid by the complainants at an interest rate of 6% p.a. The bench was hearing a complaint against Mahindra lifespace developers (Opposite party) alleging delay in possession.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Directs DLF Homes Panchkula To Pay A Hefty Compensation For Delay In Handing Over Possession
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya as the president and Dr. Inder Jit Singh as member directed DLF Homes Panchkula to pay to the complainant delay compensation at an interest of 6% p.a. from the committed date of possession till the date of offer of possession. The bench was hearing a batch of complainants against the DLF Homes Panchkula (OP) alleging delay in handing over possession.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Doctor Not Responsible For Patient Not Favorably Reacting To Treatment; NCDRC
Case Name: Kanchan Singh v. MAA Sharda Hospital & Ors.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal as Presiding Member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar and Mr. Binoy Kumar as Members disposed of a consumer complaint filed by the husband (Complainant) of a patient who went into coma after her surgery accusing the doctor (Opposite Party 2) and the Hospital (Opposite Party 2) of negligence. The complainant first registered an FIR and thereafter, a complaint was lodged at the NCDRC claiming compensation of 2 Crores INR/- along with 9% interest for negligence. The NCDRC bench dismissed the complaint and deemed it to be without merit.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Holds IDBI Bank Liable For Loss Of Original Documents
Case Title: BINOD DOKANIA & ANR Vs IDBI BANK LIMITED
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, comprising Deepa Sharma as Presiding Member and Subash Chandra as Member, allowed a complaint filed against IDBI bank alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/Bank. The complainants have filed the original complaint under section 21 read with section 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party/IDBI bank. The complainant alleged that the opposite party was guilty of deficiency in service in losing/destroying the original title documents of his residential flat. The documents were deposited with the opposite party for securing a home loan taken from the Bank.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Directs Builder To Pay Compensation For Delay In Delivery Of Possession Of Flats
Case- Anil Rawat & Anr. vs Clarion Properties Limited & 2 Ors.
A bench of NCDRC (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) comprised of Justice Ram Surat Ram Mauraya, (Presiding member) and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, has rejected the builder's argument of 'Force Majeure' and awarded compensation to the flat buyer for delay in giving possession. The legal term 'Force Majeure'(Act of GOD ) is a condition which absolves the liability of the party to the contract in case of any unforeseeable circumstances.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Directs The Builder To Refund The Deposited Amount Along With Interest And Cost
Case: Neeraj Antil Vs Ms/ Emaar MGF Land Limited
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr. Ram Surat Ram Maurya as Presiding Member and Dr. Inder Jit Singh as Member disposed of a consumer complaint. The complaint was filed by one Mr. Neeraj Antil against Ms/ Emaar MGF Land Limited for the delay in handing over the possession of the flat. The complainant contended that the construction of the flat still needs to be completed.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Dhanvantri Hospital & Research Centre and anr. vs Santosh Kumar Sharma & 3 others
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Dr. S.M. Kantikar as presiding member partly allowed an appeal filed by the appellant hospital alleging that there was no negligence on the doctor's part while performing the flap surgery on the patient/complainant who suffered from extreme burn injuries on his arm. The Commission observed that the doctor failed to perform his duties in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment and while he cannot be blamed for all the injuries which the patient suffered, it was not in his domain to perform the surgery as he was not a plastic surgeon.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sterilization/Tubectomy Are Not Absolutely Safe, Failure Does Not Deserve Compensation: NCDRC
Case: State of Rajasthan & 2 ors. vs Robina
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising presiding member, S.M. Kantikar, reversed the order of the State Commission, Rajasthan for allowing compensation to a lady who alleged that she got pregnant due to the failure of a tubectomy operation. Mr. Kantikar elaborated that the pregnancy existed prior to the operation and further, such operations are not completely safe and secure and there is a chance that women might still get pregnant after this. Thus, the case was outside the purview of medical negligence.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Yogesh Kumar vs Superintendent, Indian Postal Department
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and presiding member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar reversed the District Forum's decision, wherein compensation was ordered to be grated to a petitioner whose article suffered a delayed delivery after it was handed over to the Postal Department. The bench upheld the State Commission's reasoning that is it a settled position of law that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the postal department is exempted from any liability for delay in delivery unless the central govt. undertakes it in expressed terms.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hyundai Motor India Ltd And Its Service Centre, Liable For Selling Defective Car; NCDRC Affirms
Case Name: HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. & ANR. Vs HANSRAJ SIYAG & 3 ORS
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising President, Justice R.K. Agrawal, and Dr. S.M. Kantikar as the member has dismissed the Revision Petition filed by Hyundai Motor India Ltd. and confirmed the order passed by the State Commission. The Rajasthan State Commission had directed Hyundai Motor India Ltd and its authorized service centre to pay ₹4,74,000/- to the Complainant with interest @9% w.e.f. 25.06.2012. for manufacturing defects and for not repairing the car for almost five years.
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Case: Dr. Rajender Manchanda vs Chhinder Kaur and 8 others
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising presiding members Dr. S.M. Kantikar and Mr. Binoy Kumar upheld the State Commission's award in favour of the patient who died due to medical negligence by the doctors while performing an operation to remove the gall bladder stone. While the petitioners argued over different facts, the court held that it was bound by the fact-related findings of the District and State Commissions and in a revision petition, the NCDRC had the authority to interfere only if there had been a case of illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error.
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Doctor Liable For Negligence, NCDRC Confirms The Order Of The State Commission
Case Name: Dr. Indra Chopra Vs Rashmi Saxena
A single bench of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, of Dr. S.S. Kantikar (Presiding Member) in a Revision Petition, has confirmed the Order passed by the District Forum and State Commission. The NCDRC has held the Doctor negligent and directed him to pay Rs.3,00,000 as compensation and Rs.15,000 towards litigation costs.
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
No Defects In The Onion Seeds Sold By NHRDC: NCDRC Confirms The Order Of State Commission
Case Name: Vimal Kumar Vs Director, National Horticulture Research & Development Centre & Anr.
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal (President )and Dinesh Singh (Member) has dismissed the Revision Petitions against National Horticulture Research and Development Centre and upheld the Order passed by the Haryana State Commission. The complainant (Vimal Kumar) purchased 8 kg onion seeds @ ₹300/- per Kg. from the office of National Horticulture Research and Development Centre /Opposite Party No.2 at Karnal. At the time of harvesting the onion crop, he noticed that neither the quality nor the quantity was as per expectation. Hence, he could not sell the onion as per the market rate.
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Simple Lack Of Care, An Error In Judgment Or An Accident, Is Not Proof Of Negligence: NCDRC
Case: Dr. Ishita Tikkha vs Managing Director, Apollo Cradle and others
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising presiding member Dr. S.M. Kantikar focused on the duty of the civil society to ensure that medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated. The complaint filed by the patient was dismissed on the ground that firstly, the doctors possessed necessary skills and secondly, reasonable care was taken by them while performing the operation of the twin babies. The unfortunate death of one of the twins was attributed to the patient herself who could not take precautions and failed to follow the instructions.
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Case: Pink City Heart and General Hospital vs Banarsi Devi and ors.
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising presiding member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar allowed an appeal on account of lack of any scientific analysis and medical evidence against the appellant hospital. Two contentions were reiterated by Dr. Kantikar, firstly, if patient was in a critical condition and he could not survive even after surgery, the blame can't be passed on to the Hospital and the Doctor who had provided all possible treatment. Secondly, where the treatment is not successful or the patient dies during surgery, it cannot be automatically assumed that the medical professional was negligent.
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
NCDRC: Incorporation Of One-Sided Clauses In An Agreement Constitutes Unfair Trade Practice
Case: Sunil Sikka vs M/S Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and 7 ors.
A division bench of the NCDRC comprising presiding members Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, while adjudicating on a consumer complaint against the flat developers, reiterated that the remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to the remedies under other statutes. Further, incorporation of one-sided clauses in the agreement where the buyer is expected to sign on the dotted lines having no other option, would amount to unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Case: Naresh Garg and Sons vs CHD Developers Ltd.
A division bench of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising presiding members Ram Surat Ram Maurya and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that while the consumers can be expected to reasonably wait for the possession of the flat/unit, there must not be an inordinate delay. The Commission rejected the Developers' contention of non-compliance of the National Green Tribunal's guidelines as a reason for the delay. It was held that the developers cannot be allowed to reap the benefits of their own wrongdoing.
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Case: Pankaj Thapliyal and anr. vs M/S Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure
A single-judge bench of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) comprising presiding member Dr. Inderjit Singh, allowed a consumer complaint filed by the purchaser of a flat on account of an inordinate delay caused by the developer. The Developer's contention, that the project could not be completed on time since consumers defaulted in the payments, was rejected because as an experienced developer, it was expected of him be conscious of routine delays caused by the business exigencies. Thus, the Commission reiterated that dispute with the contractors over termination does not constitute force majeure.
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Case: M/S TDI Infrastructure Ltd. vs Raj Kumari
A division bench of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) comprising C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) and Subhash Chandra (Member), set aside the State Commission's order wherein it proceeded with a first appeal by going into the merits of the case, whereas the question was whether or not the suit was barred by limitation. The NCDRC ordered the State Commission to consider the matter afresh based on the objections raised and follow a summary approach.
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mohit Jain v. M/S Max Super Specialty Hospital & Ors.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, has observed that the Consumer Protection Act ought not to be used as a 'halter around the neck' of doctors making them apprehensive of taking professional decisions at crucial moments. The Presiding Member Dr. S.M. Kantikar was considering a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the doctors of Max Super Specialty Hospital, Delhi, and seeking a compensation to the tune of Rs. 20.33 Crores.
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
NCDRC Awards 2 Crore Compensation With Interest For Bad Haircut, Hair Treatment At ITC Maurya
Case Title: Aashna Roy v. Yogesh Deveshwar& ors.
In a significant judgement, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has awarded a compensation of 2 crore rupees with 9% interest to a woman who suffered trauma, and loss of career prospects due to a bad haircut and hair treatment, owing to the deficiency in the services of a salon at Delhi's five-star ITC Maurya in 2018. The bench of Justice R.K Agrawal (Chairman) and Dr. S.M. Kantikar (Member) said that, “the Complainant was in the modeling career and for every assignment for promotion of any hair care brand, she was being paid a higher remuneration or fee. After losing her hair, she was under distress and trauma as she was expecting destroy of her modelling career.”
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Case: Avinash Kumar Pandey & anr. vs Madhya Pradesh Housing Board and Ors.
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising presiding member, Subhash Chandra, while adjudicating on a matter related to the alleged deficiency in service by a Housing Society company, held that its revisional powers were limited to only prima-facie jurisdictional errors. Further, the concurrent findings based on evidence related to the matter once established by the lower forums, cannot be substituted while entertaining a revision petition.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Dr. Satpal Kaur Nalwa & Anr. v. M/S. Emaar Mgf Land Limited & Anr.
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently addressed a case involving allegations of non-delivery of possession of a villa, despite payment of instalments. The bench, comprising presiding member Justice R.K. Agarwal, held that the consumer court retains the power to handle complaints, even if there is an arbitration clause in the agreement. Additionally, the commission clarified that the burden of proof lies with the opposite party when arguing that the complainant does not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: M/S Flowtex Products vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
During a recent adjudication on an insurance claim dispute, the bench of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) led by presiding member, Justice R.K. Agrawal, made a significant decision and held that an insurance company cannot evade liability as per the insurance policy if the insured was not responsible for the fire incident. The Commission observed that the surveyor's report of the incident can act as a prerequisite for the insurance claim but it is neither conclusive in nature nor binding on the parties.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Gaurav Jain & Anr. v Emaar Mgf Land Ltd.
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising presiding member, Justice R.K. Agrawal, S.M. Kantikar and Binoy Kumar while adjudicating on a matter related to the alleged late delivery of property, held that processing the Fire NOC and termination of the contract with the previous contractor are not valid reasons for the delay in completing of an apartment project. The bench reiterated that the waiting period must be reasonable and the buyer cannot be made to wait for the possession of the flat (booked unit) indefinitely.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Directs HSBC Bank To Pay Rs. 15 Lakhs Compensation For Negligence And Deficient Service
Case: Anil Milkhiram Goyel & Anr v. HSBC Limited
The NCDRC allowed and disposed of a consumer complaint against HSBC Bank. The Presiding Member, Dr. Inder Jit Singh fined HSBC to pay Rs. 15 Lakhs as compensation for the mental agony, harassment, and damage to the complainants' reputation and an additional Rs. 1 Lakh to cover the litigation costs. Moreover, it is also required to provide a 'No Dues Certificate' and appropriately update the complainants' CIBIL records, indicating that the loans have been settled and there are no outstanding amounts to be paid.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: X & Anr. vs Bhatia Global Hospital & Endosurgery Institute & Ors.
The NCDRC presiding member Justice S.M. Kantikar has penalized the Bhatia Global Hospital with a fine of ₹1.5 crores for negligence and resorting to unethical practices. The Commission revealed that the event has raised concerns over distressing malpractices surrounding Assisted reproductive techniques (ART) Centres giving incorrect treatment of innocent infertile couples.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Failure To Properly Explain The Delay In Filing: NCDRC Dismisses The Revision Petition
Case: Orchid Travel and Tours vs Kamini Chauchan & 2 Ors
The New Delhi bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising Justice Deepa Sharma as the Presiding Member, emphasized that condonation of delay is not an inherent right but necessitates the person seeking it to present a valid explanation for each day of delay and establish a reasonable ground for not approaching the court within the prescribed limitation period. The reason provided for the delay must be something beyond the individual's control that prevented them from approaching the court.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Department of Post and 3 ors. vs Colonel Narendra Nath Suri
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising presiding member Justice Deepa Sharma, was adjudicating a case concerning the misappropriation of funds from a recurring deposit account at the post office. The NCDRC observed that while the Postal Department may not have been directly involved in the misappropriation, it would still be held liable for the actions of its authorized agent, appointed by the National Service Scheme (NSS).
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Pushpa Verma and 2 others vs Bhardwaj Nursing and Maternity Home and 9 others
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) absolved the doctors and the hospitals involved in the treatment of Late Justice J.S. Verma, Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) and Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Justice Verma passed away in 2013. He's known for heading a three-member panel which suggested modifications to criminal legislation in response to the 2012 Nirbhaya gangrape incident. The NCDRC referred to relevant literature, medical records, reports, opinion of the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the catena of Supreme Court decisions in cases of medical negligence, to hold that the doctors took reasonable care and due diligence during the treatment and the unfortunate death of Justice Verma cannot be attributed their actions.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Reiterates, Arbitration Clause Doesn't Bar Consumer Fora's Jurisdiction To Hear Complaints
Case: Army Welfare Housing Organisation Vs Chief Administrator, Huda & Anr.
The New Delhi bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising presiding members, C. Vishwanath and Subhash Chandra, recently held that the presence of an arbitration clause in an agreement does not prevent Consumer Fora from exercising their jurisdiction to entertain a Complaint. To emphasize the stance further, reference was made to Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which clearly states that the Act's provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of any other prevailing law. The NCDRC also affirmed its jurisdiction in cases involving some questions of law and facts.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Deen Hospital & 2 Ors. Vs Philips Thomas & 4 Ors.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Dr. S.M. Kantikar, presiding member held that unsuccessful treatment or a patient's death during surgery does not automatically imply negligence on the part of the medical professional. The NCDRC dealt with the issue of the death of an individual due to the alleged administration of 'General Anaesthesia' and 'Spinal Anaesthesia' simultaneously. While considering the challenged decision of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (Kerala), the bench was of the view that even after receiving treatment, the hospital and doctor should not be blamed if they provided appropriate care within their means and capabilities.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Ms Divya Chauhan Vs. Dr S.P. Aggarwal
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Judicial Member Mrs Pinki held that in cases involving allegations against medical professionals, negligence is a crucial element of the offence, which involves the failure to perform a duty by omission that a reasonable person would do or avoid doing. Negligence cannot be automatically assumed in unsuccessful treatments. Further, the bench was of the view that as long as a doctor performs their duties with reasonable skill and competence, they cannot be deemed negligent, and they are protected under the law as long as they follow these standards.
Chandigarh State Consumer Complaints Commission
State Consumer Commission Upholds Refund Of CTU Pass Fare For Lockdown Period
Case: Chandigarh Transport Undertaking v Ashish Kumar
The State Consumer Complaints Commission in Chandigarh, consisting of Presiding Member Mrs. Padma Pandey and Member Preetinder Singh, has rejected an appeal filed by the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking (CTU) and affirmed the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In relation to the lockdown period in 2020, the Lower Commission had directed the CTU to refund the complainant the remaining bus pass fare for two months.
Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Forum
Case: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs Mahesh Mitra
Recently, the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Forum overturned a ruling made by the Gautam Buddha Nagar District Consumer Forum, which had sentenced Ritu Maheshwari, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), to one month in prison. Maheshwari was found guilty of not complying with a directive issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2014. However, the State Consumer Forum bench, consisting of Justice Ashok Kumar and member Vikas Saxena, considered the District Commission's order "defective" because it failed to give GNIDA an opportunity to present its side of the case. The bench further reiterated the need for Consumer Commissions to follow the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when exercising powers under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case title- M/S. Lufthansa German Airlines v. Mr. Rajeev Vaderah
The DSCDRC (Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) comprising bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) Ms. Pinki, Member (Judicial) and Mr. J.P. Agrawal (General) has upheld the findings of the District Forum to compensate for the loss and mental harassment caused due to mishandling of baggage of the passenger by Lufthansa Airlines. The commission held that the airlines are custodian of the goods, and it cannot be absolved from its responsibility towards it in any manner.
Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Saravana Stores Tex v. Audi-Chennai & Ors.
The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bench comprising Justice R. Subbia, President and Mr. R. Venkatesaperumal , Member has allowed a consumer complaint against the car dealer, service provider, manufacturer for defect in the brake-mechanism of his car. The complainant had prayed to the Commission to direct car manufacturer 'Audi' to replace the defective vehicle and also to pay him a sum of 30 lakhs/- INR as compensation for trauma, mental agony, etc.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh
Case Title: Jaspreet Singh v. 24 Seven, Sector 26, Chandigarh through Nodal Officer
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh has ordered a store of grocery chain '24Seven' to pay ₹25,000 for billing ₹10 and ₹20 from a consumer towards the expenses for carry bags upon purchase of grocery items. The Commission further ordered the store to pay ₹100 to the complainant as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and ₹1100 as litigation expenses, Directing the store to refund the amount including the cost of two carry bags within 45 days, the Commission further directed it to deposit Rs. 25,000 in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of State Commission, UT Chandigarh by way of punitive damages.
Bangalore District Consumer Commission, Shanthinagar
Case Title: Abhishek MR V. Zomato and Ors.
The Bangalore District Consumer Commission, Shanthinagar directed Box8 Meals (Opposite party no.3) and the manager of Zomato (Opposite party no.2) to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. The bench comprising Mr. K.S. Bilagi as president and Mr. B.Devaraju and Mrs. V. Anuradha as members were hearing a complaint filed to seek damages from Zomato and Box8 meals for deficiency in service , negligence, and distress, pain, agony, trauma etc.
Hyderabad District Consumer Commission – I
Case: NARAYANDAS SANJAY V. TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (TSRTC)
The Hyderabad District Consumer Commission – I directed Telangana State Road Transport Corporation to Refund the amount paid by the complainant to acquire an alternate bus service along with compensation for mental agony caused and the cost of litigation. The bench comprising Justice B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi as the president and Mrs. C. Lakshmi Prasanna and Mr. R Narayana Reddy as members was hearing a complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the part of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (Opp. Party).
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South)
Case Name: Dr. Anand Gnanaraj v. Floor N Dector
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South) comprising Mrs. B. Jijaa as President, Mr. T.R. Sivakumar and Mr. S. Nandagopalan as Members partly allowed a complaint by an individual against the company that supplied the tiles for the complainant's house as the tiles were defective in nature. The bench directed the Opposite Party to either replace the defective tiles of the Complainant's house or to pay a sum of 4,18,080/- INR being the cost of the tiles and to pay a sum of 50,000/- INR as compensation for the deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the complainant.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Bindya V Suthan v M/s Maze Restaurant
A consumer court in Kerala recently directed a restaurant to pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for failure to deliver Onam Sadya on Thiruvonam day. The case of the complainant was that she had invited guests and ordered sadya for 5 persons to be delivered to her house on Thiruvonam day from a multi cuisine eatery by the name of Maze Restaurant. However, on the day of Onam, the restaurant failed to deliver the sadya, leaving the complainant and her guests without any food. The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the restaurant to refund the amount of Rs. 1295/- paid by the complainant. The court also awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for the deficiency in service which has caused “mental agony and physical hardship” to the complaint. An amount of Rs. 5,000/- was also directed to be paid by the restaurant for cost of proceedings.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Thomas George v. Peter Job
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently directed a printing press to compensate the author of a book for its failure to print the author's book in time. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. awarded a sum of Rs. 31,460 as compensation to the author. As per the facts of the case, Theressa Offset Printers & New Indian Press had submitted a quotation offering the complainant to print 500 copies of his book, 'History & Science of Numbers', the English version of 'Akkangalude Charithram', for Rs. 31,690. The complainant accepted the offer for printed books in 'word format', to be delivered by the end of July 2016.
