(1) CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, UP CIRCLE, LUCKNOW Vs. CHANDRA PAL SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) — Scope of Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact — The NCDRC, in its revisional jurisdiction, generally will not disturb concurrent findings of fact by the District Commission and State Commission when there is no material to the contrary presented. India Law Library Docid # 2427319
(2) JASWEEN SINGH Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 69 — Limitation — Condonation of Delay — Revision Petition — In the context of a revision petition under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Regulation 14(2) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 grants discretion to the Consumer Commission to condone delay if valid and sufficient reasons are provided to its satisfaction. India Law Library Docid # 2427318
(3) BANAMALI PRAMANICK Vs. MURSHIDABAD MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision — Scope of — Concurrent findings of fact — Revisional jurisdiction of National Commission is extremely limited — It can be exercised only when State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally/with material irregularity — Interference only if findings are against law, pleadings, or India Law Library Docid # 2427317
(4) L JAYAGEETHA Vs. THE MANAGER, INDIAN BANK[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 2(11) — Deficiency in service — Banking Services — Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) — Obligation of Bank to follow RBI Master Circular regarding Form 15G/15H — A bank’s failure to adhere to RBI guidelines (Master Circular dated 01.07.2014, Clause 5.8.10) regarding non-deduction of TDS when Form 15G is submitted by a depositor, without pointing out any specific deficiency in the form at the time of submission or in response to initial objections, constitutes a India Law Library Docid # 2427315
(5) INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. (IRCTC) Vs. DR. PRADEEP KUMAR AND OTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision — Scope of — Concurrent findings of fact — Revisional jurisdiction of National Commission is extremely limited — It can be exercised only when State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally/with material irregularity — Interference only if findings are against law, pleadings, or India Law Library Docid # 2427316
(6) GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY AND OTHER Vs. JUSTICE DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 11(2) — Territorial Jurisdiction — Cause of Action — A consumer complaint can be filed where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. In a case where a train ticket was booked in New Delhi and the reservation change was executed by the Northern Railway Headquarters, also located in New Delhi, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in New Delhi has proper jurisdiction to hear the complaint. India Law Library Docid # 2427314
(7) MS. SABITA RASTOGI Vs. INDIAN SPINAL INJURIES CENTRE[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Hallux Valgus Correction Surgery — Complaint alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service against hospital and orthopaedic surgeon for permanent damage to left foot and second toe after bunion deformity surgery — Complainant argued that the second toe deformity was a direct result of negligent surgery and inadequate post-operative care, procedural lapses like incorrect blood group documentation, hurried India Law Library Docid # 2427312
(8) SUNEEL SINGH Vs. NISAT HOSPITAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in Service — Medical Negligence — Hospital’s Liability — A hospital is responsible for the negligent actions of its doctors, whether employed or on contract. If a hospital fails in its duties through its doctors, it must justify its actions. India Law Library Docid # 2427313
(9) MR. KISHOR N. SHAH Vs. M/S MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer – Commercial Purpose — A person is a ‘consumer’ under the Act unless goods are obtained for commercial purpose. The burden of proving that goods were purchased for a commercial purpose rests on the opponent-seller. Where a company purchases a car for the personal use of its Director and their immediate family members, and there is no evidence to link the car’s purchase to a profit-generating activity of the company, the buyer is consider India Law Library Docid # 2427310
(10) M/S. A1 FAUZ INTERNATIONAL Vs. AUDI INDIA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 22 — Deficiency in Service — Manufacturing Defect — Car Accident — Non-deployment of Airbags — Onus of Proof — Where a claimant alleges a manufacturing defect, especially concerning safety features like airbags, it is incumbent upon them to provide expert opinion or evidence as per Section 38 of the Act, which outlines the procedure for reference to an appropriate laboratory for analysis or test of goods to determine defects. Without such evidence, a mere India Law Library Docid # 2427311
(11) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. Vs. SH. PATIL SITARAM BAGAL AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Defective Seeds — Burden of Proof — Farmer’s claim of crop loss due to defective pea seeds — District and State Commissions allowed the complaint based on a ‘Panchnama’ and a reference to a `Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee` report — National Commission observes that the Panchnama lacked expert opinion to support the claim of all seeds producing male-variant plants — The quantitative loss claimed by the farmer (40 quintals from 40kg seed India Law Library Docid # 2427309
(12) DR. SHARAD LAKHOTIA AND ANOTHER Vs. DR. PRAKASH SHARMA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — Maintainability of Complaint — Medical Services — A patient receiving medical treatment for consideration, even without a formal receipt, qualifies as a “consumer” under the Act — The fact that a doctor may have waived their personal fee does not negate the patient’s consumer status if other charges (hospital, facility use, consumables) were paid — The National Commission found the complaint maintainable, upholding the State Commission India Law Library Docid # 2427308
(13) MR. NATWARLAL DAHYABHAI KHATRI AND ANOTHER Vs. DENA BANK AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Deficiency in service — Vicarious Liability of Bank — Fraud by Bank Employee — Samruddhi Deposit Receipts (SDRs) — Premature Encashment — Forgery of Signatures — Where a bank employee, acting in the course of his employment, commits fraud, forgery, and misappropriation of funds from customers’ accounts by prematurely encashing FDs/SDRs and forging signatures, the bank is vicariously liable for the financial loss suffered by the customers. India Law Library Docid # 2427307
(14) SAKSHI OTWANI Vs. DELHI ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Revision Petition — Scope of judicial review — National Commission will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower fora unless there is a material irregularity, perversity, or misapplication of law — Dispute concerning scholarship examination ranking and alleged deficiency in service by coaching institute — Petitioner’s grievance regarding evaluation and ranking addressed by coaching institute; no evidence presented to demonstrate superio India Law Library Docid # 2427305
(15) ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAJ KUMAR RANA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service — Insurance claim — Vehicle theft — Transfer of vehicle ownership — Transfer of insurance policy — Insurable interest — Vehicle sold by original owner, its registration transferred to buyer, and then stolen within 11 days of purchase — Buyer did not formally request transfer of insurance policy to his name before theft — Insurance company rep India Law Library Docid # 2427304
(16) BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN BANK Vs. ANJANA SINHA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in Service — Banks and Banking — Loan against LIC Policies — Liquidation of pledged policies without borrower’s explicit consent — Where LIC policies are pledged as security for a loan, and the borrower defaults on repayment, the bank is within its rights to liquidate the pledged policies to recover the loan amount, even without explicit prior consent from the borrower, especially when the pledge terms allow such action. India Law Library Docid # 2427303
(17) ABU BAQAR Vs. DR. ABHAY PRATAP SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Medical Negligence — Revision Petition — Onus of Proof — Applicability of Res Ipsa Loquitur — The State Commission’s finding that medical negligence was not established due to lack of documentary evidence regarding the treatment provided by the doctor is upheld — The Petitioner’s reliance on “res ipsa loquitur” (the thing speaks for itself) is deemed inapplicable as no evidence was presented to establish its applicability, such as proof that the docto India Law Library Docid # 2427300
(18) SOPHIA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE VIKAS BHAVAN BRANCH AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Unfair Trade Practice — Insurance — Home Loan — Group Insurance Scheme — Repudiation of Claim — Death within Exclusion Period — Where a Master Policy for a group insurance scheme stipulates an exclusion clause for death occurring within 45 days of the commencement of risk, and the insured dies within this period due to natural causes, the insurance claim is validly repudiated by the insurer. India Law Library Docid # 2427301
(19) DR. RAJNI SAIGAL @ DR. RAJNI SEHAGAL, DR. RAJINI KUMAR Vs. DR. PAWAN STHAPAK, MEDICAL DIRECTOR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(a)(i) — Medical Negligence — Loss of an eye after cataract surgery — Doctor’s Duty of Care — Complainant developed severe infection post-right eye cataract surgery, leading to eventual eye removal — Despite repeated complaints of pain and vision loss, subsequent left eye surgery was performed — Delay in proper diagnosis and referral to specialized care — Hospital claimed infection originated from patient’s poor hygiene, but this was unsubstantiated give India Law Library Docid # 2427302
(20) GAURAV INDUSTRIES Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Insurance Claims — Full and Final Settlement — Coercion/Duress — Where a complainant asserts that they accepted a lower insurance settlement due to financial distress and under duress, the burden is on the complainant to provide clear and cogent evidence of such coercion or undue influence. Mere allegations of financial difficulty or a belated protest do not automatically establish a lack of free consent, especially when the payment received was encashed without i India Law Library Docid # 2427260