(1) FIITJEE LTD. Vs. SHLOK AGARWAL ALIAS SHLOK VIJAY AGARWAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-09-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Limited scope — National Commission cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate court; can only interfere in cases of jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or illegal/irregular exercise of jurisdiction. India Law Library Docid # 2432815
(2) KRISHNA DEV SAH Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORP, OF INDIA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-09-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Revisionary Jurisdiction – Limited scope – National Commission cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate court – Exercise of power only for jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or illegal/material irregularity India Law Library Docid # 2432816
(3) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. ATUL METAL INDUSTRIES[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-09-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — Held, complainant not consumer as policy purchased for commercial purpose — Matter remanded by National Commission for decision on merits. India Law Library Docid # 2432817
(4) VIKRAMADITYA VENISHETTY Vs. DR. ANANT E. BAGUL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-09-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(o), Section 12, Section 21, Section 22 — Deficiency in Service — Medical Negligence — In medical negligence cases, the standard of care is that of an ordinary competent medical practitioner exercising ordinary skill in that profession, not the highest level of expertise. A mere error in judgment or failure to achieve a desired outcome does not automatically constitute negligence India Law Library Docid # 2432818
(5) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. M/S. NAYYAR ELECTRONIC WORLD[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-09-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21 Insurance Claim Repudiation Delay in Intimation Burglary and House Breaking Policy Admitted Facts: Delay of six days in intimation by insured to insurer, FIR lodged with police promptly Repudiation Letter cited delay as one ground. Policy Clause 4 requires "immediate notice". IRDA Circular dated 20.09.2011 advises against repudiation solely on delay due to unavoidable India Law Library Docid # 2432819
(6) M/S. SRI SHADI LAL ENTERPRISES LTD. Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-09-2025 Insurance Law Fire and Special Perils Policy Molasses Tank Burst Repudiation of Claim Cause of Loss Wear and Tear vs. Chemical Reaction/Pressure Build-up Surveyor's Report vs. Expert Analysis Material Non-Disclosure Exclusion Clause Applicability Strict Interpretation of Policy Terms. India Law Library Docid # 2432820
(7) SMT. KANTA Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-09-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Insurance Law — Duty of utmost good faith (uberrima fides) — Insured’s duty to disclose material facts arises to enable insurer to assess risk — Material fact must have a clear nexus to the risk assumed or cause of death. India Law Library Docid # 2432821
(8) AMARJEET LIDDER AND OTHERS Vs. LT. GEN. U.K. GANGULI AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-09-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Deficiency in Service Misrepresentation and Non-Disclosure of Material Facts Travel agents assured elderly clients of a safe and comfortable Europe tour with 3-star accommodations, but provided substandard services including denied bottled water, personally collected visa documents, distant accommodations, and inadequate local transport. Agents also failed to disclose India Law Library Docid # 2432822
(9) TRILOKI NATH SINGLA AND ANOTHER Vs. ICICI BANK AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-09-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24A — Limitation — Continuing cause of action — Complaint filed after two years of cause of action barred unless sufficient cause shown — Payment of EMIs does not constitute a continuing cause of action for challenging interest rates unless the wrong itself continues — Mere continuation of damage does not make a wrong continuing. India Law Library Docid # 2432823
(10) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. PRABHDEEP KAUR BINDRA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-08-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21(b) Revisionary Jurisdiction Interference is warranted only for jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or perversity. The State Commission's findings were based on facts and established principles, not on conjectures or surmises. No perversity or patent illegality was demonstrated. India Law Library Docid # 2432824
(11) BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. VISHAL ANAND[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-08-2025 Insurance Act, 1938 — Sections 64-UM(2), 64-UM(1A) — Surveyor's Report — Rejection of Report — Insurer cannot arbitrarily reject surveyor's report; must provide valid reasons for disagreement. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Arbitrary rejection of surveyor's report by an insurer amounts to deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2432825
(12) VINOD SHARMA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-08-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now Consumer Protection Act, 2019) — Section 17 — Jurisdiction of State Commission — Cross Appeals filed against order of State Commission partially allowing complaint against bank — Facts and questions of law found similar regarding both appeals — Appeals disposed of by common order. India Law Library Docid # 2432826
(13) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SUNIL KUMAR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-08-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 39, 43(2), 41 — Necessity of Registration — Driving a vehicle without valid registration is an offence and a fundamental breach of insurance policy terms — Temporary registration valid for one month and not renewable — Driving a vehicle without any registration certificate, whether temporary or permanent, on public roads is illegal and against public policy — Repudiation of insurance claim is justified in such cases. India Law Library Docid # 2432827
(14) SUPERINTENDENT POST OFFICE AND ANOTHER Vs. SATYA NARAYAN AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-08-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Liability of Principal for Acts of Agent — Post Office as Principal — Appointed agent for Recurring Deposit Scheme — Agent’s representative received loan repayment from complainant — E mbezzlement occurred — Held, Principal (Post Office) vicariously liable for deficiency in service as agent induced complainant to deliver payments to her representative to be deposited. India Law Library Docid # 2432828
(15) MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD. Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-08-2025 Insurance — Consumer Protection — Jurisdiction — A consumer complaint filed against an insurance company for repudiation of a claim is maintainable before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, even if it involves questions of fact and law, as the Act provides for speedy and inexpensive remedies. India Law Library Docid # 2432829
(16) K.M.GEORGE Vs. SECRETARY, KANHANGAD MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-08-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — Definition — Auction purchaser as consumer — An auction purchaser/lessee of a site is not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the fora under the Act lack jurisdiction to entertain complaints filed by such purchasers/lessees against the auctioning authority India Law Library Docid # 2432830
(17) NAGARIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN PANDEY THROUGH LRS .[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-08-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(b) — Complainant defined as Consumer — Section 2(d)(ii) — Defines Consumer — Section 2(g) — Defines Deficiency — Section 2(o) — Defines Service — Banking services fall under the definition of service — Failure to make payment of deposits at maturity constitutes deficiency in service — Maintainability of consumer complaint against Bank through Liquidator — Held, India Law Library Docid # 2432831
(18) SANGEETA AGRAWAL Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-08-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 12 Insurance claim Ownership and Insurable Interest Vehicle insured in petitioner's name, but registered in husband's name at time of accident Insurance company repudiated claim on grounds of lack of insurable interest and no privity of contract with registered owner Held, insurance is a contract, and claims are governed by policy terms Petitioner was insured, but not registered owner; husband was registered owner, but not insured No contractual obli India Law Library Docid # 2432988
(19) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. K.S BHATTI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-08-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 12, 2(1)(d), 2(1)(r) Deficiency in Service Unfair Trade Practice Railways Act, 1989 Section 100 Railways' Liability for Luggage Negligence Theft Territorial Jurisdiction Non-joinder of Parties Respondent booked tickets and boarded train at Chandigarh, establishing territorial jurisdiction for complaint Court found no deficiency in service by railways regarding safety of personal luggage carried by passengers, without being booked, unless proven India Law Library Docid # 2432989
(20) ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. KANWALPREET KAUR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-08-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Revision Petition — Maintainability — Revision petitions filed before a key judgment on the maintainability of such petitions for consumer complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Parties agreed to treat RPs as Second Appeals, dispensing with formal redesignation, and proceed on merits if substantial question of law is involved. India Law Library Docid # 2432990