(101) INDOSTAR CAPITAL FINANCE LIMITED Vs. GULFAM RASHID[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-12-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Revision Petition — Maintainability — A second revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against a revisional order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) is not maintainable, following the precedent set in M/s. Gary Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, (now known as 'Omaxe Gary Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.) vs. Nitin Saxena. India Law Library Docid # 2437384
(102) JITENDER Vs. IFFCO TOKIO GEN.INSURANCE CO.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-12-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Motor Insurance — Theft Claim — Repudiation on ground of delay and contradictory statements — Vehicle stolen on 24.10.2015; FIR lodged on 05.11.2015 (12-day delay); Insurer intimated on 07.11.2015 (14-day delay) — Supreme Court precedent holds that mere delay in intimating the insurer about theft cannot be a sole ground for repudiation, especially when theft was immediately reported to the police and FIR/Untraced Report confirms the India Law Library Docid # 2437385
(103) AXIS BANK AND OTHERS Vs. DR. SHABIR KHAN RANJAN RAWTHER AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-12-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 19 — First Appeal — Deficiency in Service — Fraudulent Online Transactions — Liability of Bank (Axis Bank) and Telecom Service Provider (Vodafone) — Unauthorized transfer of Rs. 11,14,500/- from customer's bank accounts using duplicate SIM — Telecom provider's role in issuing duplicate SIM in a casual manner without proper verification, facilitating hackers to gain access to accounts, constitutes grave deficiency in service — Bank's liability arises from India Law Library Docid # 2437381
(104) JARPULA VEERU AND OTHERS Vs. MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-12-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Seed Defect — Admixture — Requirement of Scientific Testing — Complaint of crop loss due to defective, spurious, and substandard seeds (Hybrid Chilli Tejaswini, Mahyco) resulting in 30% admixture — District Forum allowed the complaint based primarily on a Committee report which noted 30% admixture without formal seed sample testing — State Commission set aside the order — National Commission holds that a Committee report based merely on field visitation and India Law Library Docid # 2437382
(105) RAJKUMARI PATEL AND OTHERS Vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-12-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 51(2) — Second Appeal — Life Insurance — Repudiation of Claim — Concealment of Material Facts/Pre-existing Disease — Deceased insured obtained a loan protection insurance policy after undergoing Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) and being a known case of Hypertension, but failed to disclose these facts in the Member Consent Form — Insured passed away due to brain hemorrhage within the policy period (Early Claim) — Insurer India Law Library Docid # 2437383
(106) M/S. INDIAN ACRYLICS LTD. Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-12-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Review Application — Condonation of Delay — Limitation — Explanation for Delay — Original F.A. allowed on 16.01.2024 with interest @ 6% p.a., but without specifying the date from which interest accrues — Insurance Co. paid interest only from the date of order — Appellant pursued legal remedy bonafide by filing Execution Application (E.A.) on 02.05.2024, arguing interest should run from Complaint date — E.A. Bench inquired if Review was sought, leading to India Law Library Docid # 2437380
(107) YOGESH K. MEHTA Vs. DOORDARSHAN EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-12-2025 Consumer Protection — Deficiency in Service — Housing Society — Cancellation of Flat Allotment — Flat Allotment of Member (Y.K. Mehta) cancelled by Housing Society's General Body (Doordarshan Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.) following recommendation of Managing Committee after member requested six months extension to clear dues — Society's action of not entertaining complainant's request for time extension while granting extension to other defaulters amounted to discriminatory India Law Library Docid # 2437378
(108) IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RAM KUMAR GURJAR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-12-2025 Consumer Protection — Insurance Law — Motor Insurance — Theft/Dacoity Claim — Repudiation by Insurer — Grounds for Repudiation — Insurer repudiated claim citing driver lacking valid Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) license (only held Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license), engagement in illegal activity (transportation of bajari), and failure to surrender second original key — State Commission allowed complaint and directed payment on non-standard basis — Held: Since vehicle was forcibly removed (dacoity) India Law Library Docid # 2437379
(109) KJS CEMENT LTD. Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2025 Consumer Protection — Insurance — Erection Policy — Commencement and cessation of coverage — Claim repudiated for damage to Reverse Air Bag House (RABH) equipment of cement plant due to explosion under Erection Insurance policy — Policy terms stipulate coverage ceases immediately after first test operation or test loading is concluded (whichever is earlier), but in no case beyond four weeks from the day after completion of erection a trial running is made — Trial run with load capacity of India Law Library Docid # 2437376
(110) M/S. NANCY LAKE HOMES CO. OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Vs. NANCY ICON BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) [defining 'consumer'] and Section 2(1)(b) [defining 'person'] — Locus Standi of Cooperative Housing Society — A cooperative housing society formed by allottees, regardless of whether its formation was voluntary or mandated by statute (such as MOFA), is competent to file a consumer complaint on behalf of its members concerning common areas, amenities, and conveyance, since it qualifies as a 'person' and is a 'beneficiary' of services rendered by India Law Library Docid # 2437377
(111) SMT. SARLA DEVI Vs. NORTHERN RAILWAY CENTRAL HOSPITAL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-11-2025 Consumer Protection — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care (OP-1 & OP-2, Railway Hospital) — Delay in Diagnosis/Admission — 22-year old patient presented with severe abdominal pain and vomiting — OP-1 treated patient for renal calculi based on earlier USG and examination, advising review in Surgical OPD SOS, despite suspecting appendicitis — Patient was not admitted upon initial presentation/request by relatives — Clinical condition and treatment decision must be evaluated based on India Law Library Docid # 2437374
(112) MANAGER (CLAIMS), LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. CHANDA DEVI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 51 — Life Insurance — Repudiation of Claim — Alleged Suppression of Material Facts — Contract of utmost good faith — Deceased Life Assured (DLA) obtained Jeevan Mitra Policy in 2011; died in 2014; claim repudiated in 2015 based on non-disclosure of pre-existing ailments (Duodenitis with Malabsorption Syndrome, Ileocecal Ulceration, Koch’s Abdomen, and Pancytopenia with Dyslipidemia) treated in early 2011, prior to policy proposal (September 2011) — DLA India Law Library Docid # 2437375
(113) S.M. JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. DR. ALOK MATHUR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Doctor's failure to record diagnosis on prescription — Allegation against family physician (OP-1) for failing to diagnose severe pneumonia and adopting a casual approach — Initial treatment provided by OP-1 was found by the Delhi Medical Council (DMC) to cover the "entire spectrum of the prevailing clinical situation"; India Law Library Docid # 2437372
(114) DR. ANITA PANWAR AND OTHERS Vs. MEENA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care (Bolam Test) — Liability of Doctor — Expert Opinion — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) is not bound by concurrent findings of lower fora in medical negligence cases where no expert opinion was relied upon — Expert opinion plays a crucial role in determining whether the standard of care expected has been breached — A doctor is not negligent if they act in accorda India Law Library Docid # 2437373
(115) M/S. TIME TECHNOPLAST LIMITED COMPANY (EARLIER SUPERMAID) Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection — Deficiency in Service — Insurance Claim — Fire Policy (Reinstatement Basis) — Claim for deficit amount and interest due to delayed payment — Insured factory suffered total loss in 1999, initial adhoc payment made in 2000, final payments made in April 2003, and discharge vouchers signed simultaneously — Subsequent complaint filed in 2004 disputing settlement amount India Law Library Docid # 2437449
(116) RADHARAMANA COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. Vs. TATA MOTORS LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Manufacturing Defect vs. Driving Error — Luxury Car Purchase — Complainant alleged manufacturing defect (wobbling, juddering) in a Range Rover (purchased in 2010), leading to frequent repair visits for brake issues — Manufacturer (Opposite Party) contended defects were due to reckless driving and failure to adhere to Owner's Manual, citing India Law Library Docid # 2437450
(117) K.G.M. HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. SANDEEP KAUR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Proof — Comparative weight of findings in criminal and consumer proceedings — An acquittal in criminal proceedings (reaching up to the Supreme Court) against a doctor for criminal negligence related to the same facts, after thoroughly examining expert and medical evidence, and rejecting allegations of forgery and manipulated disability, India Law Library Docid # 2437451
(118) SANJAY GANDHI POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES THROUGH DIRECTOR AND OTHERS Vs. RAJENDDRA NATH KESERWANI AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection — Medical Negligence — Standard of Proof — Allegations of medical negligence against SGPGI and doctors in treating a child for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) — Complainant failed to adduce conclusive and convincing evidence of medical negligence — Diagnosis and line of treatment, including chemotherapy, were in accordance with medical protocols and there was no evidence to suggest such treatment was wrong — Expert medical opinion was not India Law Library Docid # 2437452
(119) RAJBIR SINGH BRAR Vs. ESS KAY FINCORP LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Sections 41, 47(1)(a)(iii), 51(2), 71, 72, 73 — Second Appeal against enforcement/execution proceedings — Maintainability — An appeal under Section 51(2) of the 2019 Act is not maintainable before the National Commission against an order passed by the State Commission in appellate jurisdiction, which arises out of enforcement/execution proceedings under Section 71 of the Act (Order of enforcement/execution). India Law Library Docid # 2437453
(120) ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. HARVINDER SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission — Scope and limitations — Paramount consideration is whether State Commission acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally/with material irregularity — National Commission has limited power and cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on evidence India Law Library Docid # 2437454