(21) S.K. SHEIK ABDULLAH Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in Service — Insurance Claim — Repudiation of fire and special perils policy claim due to flood damage — Insurance Policy Condition 6 (timely intimation) and Condition 8 (fraudulent claim/false declaration) — Insurer’s repudiation justified where intimation of loss was significantly delayed (7 months) and no proper explanation was provided for the delay or disposal of salvage — Evidence establishes that the delay prejudiced the insurer India Law Library Docid # 2427255
(22) BRANCH INCHARGE, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. CHETAN KUMAR DHRUV AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(a)(ii) & (b) — ATM Transaction Failure — Deficiency in Service — Joint and Several Liability — Where a customer attempts to withdraw money from an ATM and the full amount is debited but only a partial amount is dispensed, it constitutes deficiency in service by the banks involved. Both the “issuing bank” (where the customer holds the account) and the “acquiring bank” (managing the ATM) can be held jointly and severally liable for such deficiency, India Law Library Docid # 2427256
(23) BHOLA RAM Vs. DR. K.P. CHAUDHARY[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — ‘Consumer’ — Government Hospital Services — Medical Negligence — Whether a patient receiving free treatment at a government hospital is a ‘consumer’ under the Act — The Supreme Court’s ruling in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (AIR 1996 SC 550) held that government hospitals offering entirely free treatment are not covered under the Act unless fees are India Law Library Docid # 2427257
(24) SHRI P.R MEENA Vs. HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58 (1) (b) — Revision Petition — Section 38 — Procedure on admission of complaint alleging manufacturing defect — Section 2 (1) (i) — Definition of “appropriate laboratory” — Essential requirement for proving manufacturing defect — When a complaint alleges a defect in goods that cannot be determined without proper analysis or test, the District Commission must obtain a sample, seal it, and refer it to an “appropriate laboratory” for analysis and report — T India Law Library Docid # 2427258
(25) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED Vs. PROF. ANIL CHANGANI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction — National Commission — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s revisional powers are strictly limited — It can only intervene if the State Commission or District Forum has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity India Law Library Docid # 2427259
(26) M/S. UNITED AIRLINES INC Vs. HARJEET SINGH BHATIA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal — Deficiency in Service — Loss/Damage to Cargo — Air Carrier’s Liability — Custodian’s Liability — Where an air carrier delivers cargo to a customs-bonded warehouse (custodian), and no damage or shortage is noted by the Customs authorities or the carrier upon delivery, the carrier’s liability for loss or damage generally ceases. Subsequent discovery of discrepancy in quantity or damage while the cargo is in the custodian’s possession points to India Law Library Docid # 2427253
(27) MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. Vs. SHRI SIJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — Concurrent Findings of Lower Fora — Scope of Interference — The National Commission can only interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower fora if the findings are perverse (based on conjecture, surmise, or evidence not on record, or ignoring material evidence) or if there is a jurisdictional error or material irregularity leading to a miscarriage of justice. Re India Law Library Docid # 2427254
(28) ABDULKADAR MOHMEDUSMAN IDARIYA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Insurance Claim — Loss due to Communal Violence — Assessment of Loss — State Commission’s Findings — Cash Transactions — The State Commission correctly rejected cash purchases exceeding Rs. 20,000/- for indemnity purposes, as such transactions should ideally be witnessed through cheques India Law Library Docid # 2427250
(29) SHIVANI ATAL KAPUR Vs. ICICI BANK AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(a) — Deficiency in Service — Home Loan — Allegation of wrongful declaration as willful defaulter — Complainant took a home loan from OP-1 (Bank) and cancelled the property purchase from OP-2 (builder) — Complainant defaulted on 19 EMIs — Bank declared the loan as an NPA and invoked SARFAESI Act, publishing a default notice in a newspaper after an initial notice was undeliverable due to an unverified address change request from the complainant — Complain India Law Library Docid # 2427251
(30) MANAGER, INDUSIND BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. ASHOK KUMAR PATEL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission — Scope and Limitations — The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited and should be exercised only when the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. The National Commission India Law Library Docid # 2427252
(31) ALPURPOSE TEXTILES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-04-2025 Insurance Law — Fire Insurance Policy — Repudiation of Claim — Deficiency in Service — Insured’s Obligations — It is the primary obligation of the insured to diligently raise the claim within time, provide reasonably requested material to the surveyor, establish the operation of the insured peril, prove ownership and availability of lost/damaged goods, quantify the loss, and demonstrate policy coverage. India Law Library Docid # 2427249
(32) MAYANK GOYAL Vs. BANK OF BARODA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(a)(i) — Deficiency in Service — Insurance — Repudiation of life insurance claim — Unsubstantiated allegations of non-disclosure — Burden of proof on insurer — Where insurer conducted comprehensive pre-policy medical examination and found no adverse health conditions, subsequent repudiation of claim citing pre-existing diseases is arbitrary and constitutes deficiency in service — Absence of credible medical evidence, hospitalization records, or prescript India Law Library Docid # 2427247
(33) SAMBHUNATH MISHRA Vs. DR. DEBABRATA PANIGRAHI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Bolam Test — A medical professional is not deemed negligent merely because a surgical procedure did not achieve the desired outcome or if there were complications inherently known to the procedure — Liability for medical negligence requires proof that the doctor’s conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in their field — This involves establishing a duty of care, a breach of that du India Law Library Docid # 2427248
(34) M/S. AINAJ INDUSTRIES Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Insurance Law — Fire Insurance Policy — Short Settlement of Claim — Cottonseeds Coverage — Discharge Voucher — Maintainability of Complaint — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) finds that the State Commission erred in dismissing the complaint solely based on the signing of a discharge voucher, especially when the complainant consistently disputed the short-settlement. The NCDRC emphasizes that a India Law Library Docid # 2427245
(35) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. SUNKAVALLI PAVAN KUMAR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Banking Service — Deficiency in Service — Lost Cheque — Bank’s liability for misplacement of cheque — While misplacement of a cheque by the bank during collection is a deficiency in service, awarding the full cheque amount as compensation is not warranted if the complainant failed to attempt to obtain a duplicate cheque under Section 45A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, or to mitigate losses. India Law Library Docid # 2427246
(36) Ms. A. SHILPA Vs. M/s SHRIRAM LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-04-2025 Insurance Law – Life Insurance – Repudiation of Claim – Non-disclosure of Material Facts – Alcoholism – Multiple Policies – Burden of Proof – Section 45, Insurance Act, 1938 – The repudiation of life insurance claims by the insurer on the grounds of non-disclosure of the deceased life assured’s (DLA) alleged chronic alcoholism and holding of multiple insurance policies was held unjustified — The insurer failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, which re India Law Library Docid # 2424487
(37) BIRENDER KUMAR SINGH Vs. TATA MEMORIAL CENTRE AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Medical Negligence – Misdiagnosis – Cancer (Adenocarcinoma vs. SPEN) – Standard of Care – Burden of Proof – Allegations of medical negligence against hospitals (OP1 & OP2) for misdiagnosing pancreatic cancer (Adenocarcinoma) instead of Solid Cystic Papillary Epithelial Neoplasm (SPEN), leading to chemotherapy and pancreatectomy, were examined — The complainant argued OP2 misdiagnosed based on FNAC and OP1 wrongly relied on OP2’s report without indepen India Law Library Docid # 2424488
(38) ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB Vs. P. AKBAR ALI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Deficiency in Service – Electricity Dues – Minimum Guarantee Charges – Dispossession of Unit – Liability of Consumer – A demand raised by the Electricity Board (KSEB) for minimum guarantee charges against a consumer for the period after the consumer was dispossessed of their industrial unit by a State Financial Corporation (KSFC) is unjustified and constitutes deficiency in service — When the consumer is no longer in possession or control of the unit, and the elec India Law Library Docid # 2424489
(39) STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SHRI KAUSHIK CHATTERJI AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Deficiency in Service – Banking – Unauthorized ATM Withdrawals – Liability of Bank – Confidentiality of PIN – CCTV Footage – A bank (SBI) was found deficient in service for unauthorized ATM withdrawals totaling Rs. 6,18,848/- from a customer’s account over two months — The withdrawals occurred at various ATMs, including other banks’, often during odd hours, and on some occasions, prima facie exceeded the bank’s stated daily limit of Rs. 40,000/- — The bank’s defen India Law Library Docid # 2424490
(40) CHIF COMMERCIAL MANAGER (PS & CATG) SOUTHERN EASTERN RAILWAY AND OTHERS Vs. NILANJANA SINHA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-03-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Deficiency in Service – Railways – Denial of Concession to Differently-Abled Person – Disability Certificate – The denial of a 50% rail fare concession by one Railway reservation office (Howrah) to a differently-abled person (Mongolian baby, 75% disability) and her escort, citing non-mentioning of the specific nature of handicap and overwriting on the Disability Certificate, constitutes deficiency in service, especially when another reservation office (Azimganj) u India Law Library Docid # 2424491