(241) M/S. CARE WELL HOSPITAL Vs. ANIL ARORA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Interference with concurrent findings of lower fora — National Commission's revisional powers are limited to cases of patent illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error, not re-appreciation of evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2419429
(242) SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA AND ANOTHER Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 17, 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Scope — National Commission's power in revision is limited to cases where there is a prima facie jurisdictional error or where the lower forum acted illegally or with material irregularity — Cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence by District Forum and State Commission. India Law Library Docid # 2419430
(243) PRADEEP KUMAR YADAV Vs. ICICI, LOMBARD GERNERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Insurance Claim — repudiation of vehicle theft claim due to delay in reporting — Supreme Court judgments establish that minor delay in intimating insurer or lodging FIR is not a ground to deny a genuine claim after vehicle theft. India Law Library Docid # 2419431
(244) RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER Vs. NORAT SINGH RATHORE[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — National Commission's power under Section 21(b) is limited to cases where State Commission exceeded jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Interference with concurrent findings of fact of lower forums is not permissible except in cases of illegality or material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2419432
(245) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. SMT SUNITA DEVI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Limited scope — National Commission's power to interfere is restricted to cases where State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted with illegality or material irregularity — Concurrent findings of fact by lower forums are generally not subject to re-examination in revision. India Law Library Docid # 2419433
(246) YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH (DEAD) AND OTHERS Vs. ESTATE OFFICER, CHHATTISGARH HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Limited Scope — National Commission can only interfere if State Commission acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, illegally, or with material irregularity — Cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact based on evidence appreciation. India Law Library Docid # 2419434
(247) PREM SINGH Vs. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 19 — Appeal against order of State Commission — Dismissal of complaint — upheld. India Law Library Docid # 2419435
(248) HUSSAIN MOHAMMAD (DEAD) AND OTHERS Vs. FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-09-2024 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 56 — Validity of Registration and Fitness Certificate — Requirement for transport vehicle to carry a certificate of fitness for valid registration — Insurance repudiation based on lack of physical possession of fitness certificate at time of accident — Evidence shows payment of fee and penalty for extension of fitness certificate on same day of accident, prior to accident — Transport officials’ inspection and fee deposit indicate compliance with requirements — India Law Library Docid # 2426891
(249) MOHD. HYDER KHAN Vs. MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 12 — Appeal against State Commission order — Delay condoned in interest of justice. India Law Library Docid # 2418198
(250) REGIONAL CLAIMS MANAGER, HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SAS MACHINE TOOLS PVT. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal — Limitation — Delay condoned by Supreme Court subject to payment of costs. India Law Library Docid # 2418199
(251) M/S. E.R. MOTORS Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeals against State Commission order — Cross appeals filed by complainant for enhancement of compensation and by insurance company for setting aside order — State Commission had allowed complaint directing insurance company to pay additional sum with interest and compensation for mental harassment and costs. India Law Library Docid # 2418200
(252) HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR AND ALLIED SCIENCES Vs. SMT. MUNNI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal — Medical Negligence — Standard of Proof — While medical negligence allegations are serious, proof must be beyond mere suspicion or probability. Expert opinions offering probabilities, without conclusive findings linking the outcome to specific negligent acts by the hospital, are insufficient to establish deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2418201
(253) M/S ATMA STEEL LIMITED Vs. HARVEER SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer dispute — Deficiency in service — Where a company fails to pay deposited money with accrued interest as promised, it constitutes a deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2418197
(254) JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJESH VERMA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 24A Limitation Continuing cause of action If a developer fails to fulfill their obligations under an agreement, it constitutes a continuing cause of action, making the complaint not time-barred. India Law Library Docid # 2418203
(255) SHRIKRISHNA PANDITRAO DANVE Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-09-2024 Consumer Protection Excessive Billing Calculation of Average Consumption District Commission directed electricity company to revise bills based on average consumption of 400 units per month from October 2004 to April 2012. India Law Library Docid # 2418202
(256) NPX TOWER OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. M/S. HI-LEAD INFOTECH PVT. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-09-2024 UP Apartments Act, 2010 Applicability Not applicable to commercial complexes maintained as a single unit by the promoter. India Law Library Docid # 2418207
(257) UNION OF INDIA Vs. M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Insurance — Deficient Service — Contract of Indemnity — Insured is a Consumer — Repudiation of claim on grounds of late intimation and non-issuance of policy certificate — Advance premium deposited — Intimation letter signed by officer finalizing deal — Opposite party failed to deny authenticity of intimation letter and withheld best evidence — Adverse inference drawn — Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64VB — Risk assumed only on payment of premium — Policy terms and India Law Library Docid # 2418208
(258) DR. R.K. AGARWAL AND OTHERS Vs. SUMIT SRIVASTAVA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) & 2(1)(d) — Medical Negligence — Admission of appeal with delay — Delay of 89 days in filing appeal condoned due to reasons stated in application regarding translation of documents and engaging advocate. India Law Library Docid # 2418209
(259) AMARJEET B. MISHRA Vs. DR. PANJABRAO ALIAS BHAUSAHEB DESHMUKH MEMORIAL MEDICAL COLLEGE AMRAVATI AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d) and Section 2(1)(e) — Consumer — Service — Consideration — Distinction between student and employee — A person availing services without consideration is not a consumer — Fees paid for educational courses are not consideration for medical treatment — Services rendered by an intern as part of their training, without any agreement for consideration between the hospital and intern, do not constitute consideration for medical services — Appeal dismissed India Law Library Docid # 2418210
(260) K. MURUGESAN Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o) Consumer and Service Definitions Beneficiary of a Government scheme, which is provided free of charge and for a commercial purpose, is not considered a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. India Law Library Docid # 2418211