(181) RAKESH SINGH Vs. GREAT MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-10-2024 Housing — Allotment of a residential apartment — Appellant was declared successful in a draw and issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) for an apartment priced at Rs. 55,00,000 — He deposited Rs. 59,75,750 but did not receive possession within the stipulated period —The main issues are the delay in possession, the refund of the deposited amount, and the deduction of 10% of the amount by GMADA — Appellant argued that he was not at fault for the delay in payments, that GMADA wrongly deducted 10% of the India Law Library Docid # 2419333
(182) GENESIS IMMIGRATION AND EDUCATION AND OTHERS Vs. SARITA KINGER AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of Consumer — Consideration for Services — No deficiency in service found when no fee was paid for services related to Canadian immigration applications, and initial Australian immigration services resulted in a positive assessment from VETASSES, despite an eventual rejection due to the applicant's IELTS score. India Law Library Docid # 2419334
(183) HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RUPKUWAR PATEL AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 17, 19, 21(b) — Revisional jurisdiction of National Commission — Limited scope — Interference only in cases of jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity — Cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2419335
(184) LOK NATH Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can interfere with orders of lower consumer fora if they are illegal, irregular, or passed with material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2419336
(185) MS. ALKA GUPTA Vs. M/S DLF UNIVERSAL LTD[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(a)(i) — Deficiency in Service — Possession of flat, refund of excess amount sought. India Law Library Docid # 2419332
(186) M/S. SOHAM MANNAPITLU POWER PVT. LTD. Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Insurance Law — Contract of Insurance — Interpretation of Policy — Accidental Damage — Exclusion Clauses — A claim for damage to a forebay wall was rejected by the insurer on the grounds that the damage was not caused by an "accident" as defined by the policy, but rather by faulty design, poor workmanship, and inadequate maintenance, all of which were excluded causes under the policy. The consumer forum agreed with the insurer that the collapse of the wall, a structure expected to last 50 years, India Law Library Docid # 2419320
(187) NITU KUMARI AND ANOTHER Vs. DR. VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(d), 21(a)(i) — Medical Negligence — Medical Services — Complainant filed complaint alleging medical negligence against doctors and nursing home during treatment. The primary grievance was that the appendix surgery performed by OP-1 led to intestinal perforation, septicaemia, and subsequent serious health complications, including Crohn's disease. The complainant also alleged lack of proper pre-operative tests, faulty consent, collusion for false repor India Law Library Docid # 2419321
(188) JAI INDIA WEAVING MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Insurance Act, 1938 — Section 45 — Avoidance of policy on ground of misrepresentation or suppression of material fact — Contract of insurance is based on utmost good faith — Insured has a fundamental duty to be truthful and transparent in the proposal form — Non-disclosure of medical history, habits, and past surgeries constituted a breach of this principle, even if the misstatements were not material to the cause of death — Every query and information in the proposal form must be full, true, an India Law Library Docid # 2419322
(189) DINESH BALCHAND SHAH Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service, Unfair trade practice — Insurance claim repudiation — Non-disclosure of material facts — Insurer can repudiate a claim if material facts are suppressed in the proposal form, affecting the insurer's decision to underwrite the risk. India Law Library Docid # 2419323
(190) M/S. JINDAL & CO. Vs. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service — Insurance — Exclusion clause — Insurance company issued a policy despite knowing that the stock was kept in the basement and the proposal form specifically indicated coverage for stock in the basement, but later sought to rely on an exclusion clause — Held, this conduct amounted to deficiency in service, as the exclusion clause defeated the very object of the contract from its inception. Supreme Court's ruling in Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v India Law Library Docid # 2419324
(191) OPAL HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. DAMYANTI SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g) Medical Negligence Admissibility of Expert Opinion Court not bound to accept expert opinion in every case Can rely on other evidence, medical literature, and its own assessment Discretion of Fora to allow expert evidence Expert opinion required to explain technical issues and assist in determining negligence. India Law Library Docid # 2419325
(192) RAJA GEMS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Insurance Policy — Special Contingency Insurance Policy — Breach of Warranty — Insured's obligations — Insurer discharged from liability for non-compliance with policy terms. India Law Library Docid # 2419326
(193) DILIP KUMAR CHATURVEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 58(1)(b) Revision Petition Against State Commission order quashing District Forum order. India Law Library Docid # 2419327
(194) DHIRAJ KAUSHIK Vs. ANEJA HOSPITAL & NURSING HOME AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) — Deficiency in Service — Medical Negligence — Gall Bladder Stone Operation — Complainant alleged non-removal of gall bladder despite surgery and payment — Opposite party hospital claimed successful removal and no issues for three years — State Commission set aside District Commission's order finding deficiency in service — High Court upheld State Commission's decision, dismissing the revision petition filed by the complainant. India Law Library Docid # 2419328
(195) ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. IMRAN ASHRAF[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Concurrent Findings of Lower Forums — Scope of — While generally bound by concurrent findings, Court can interfere if there's a perversity or if a strict interpretation of policy terms unjustly penalizes the insured. India Law Library Docid # 2419329
(196) SPICEJET LTD. Vs. MONIL MODI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Limited scope — National Commission's revisional power is restricted to cases where State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2419330
(197) M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ANJU KUMARI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — National Commission's powers limited to jurisdictional error, not re-appreciation of facts — Concurrent findings of fact by District Forum and State Commission generally not to be interfered with unless illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. India Law Library Docid # 2419331
(198) M/S MOHAN MINES PVT. LTD Vs. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-10-2024 Insurance Law — Standard Fire and Special Perils (SFSP) Policy — Location Specificity — Repudiation of Claim — A Standard Fire and Special Perils policy is location-specific, and a claim is not admissible if the damage occurs at a location not covered by the policy. India Law Library Docid # 2419319
(199) SONI BHARTI Vs. DR. PRABHA SINHA OF MANAS AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against State Commission's order dismissing complaint — Delay condoned — Interest of justice. India Law Library Docid # 2419309
(200) ROHIT CHARAN AND ANOTHER Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH KANDHAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Jurisdiction Consumer is a person who hires or avails of the services for consideration Hospital and doctor providing medical services are considered to be service providers and patients are consumers. India Law Library Docid # 2419310