(241) PRAVAR ADHIKSHAK AND ANOTHER Vs. PINKY WADHWA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024 Life Insurance Policy — The complainant's husband had two Postal Life Insurance policies and passed away in 2009 — The insurance claim was denied due to alleged suppression of material facts about his health —Whether the insured suppressed material facts about his health, and if the insurance company was justified in denying the claim — Petitioner argued that the insured concealed his illness (cancer) when applying for the policies — The insurance contract is void due to this non-disclosure — Th India Law Library Docid # 2416971
(242) JAMANBHAI ARJANBHAI GHEDIA Vs. H.&R. JOHNSON (INDIA) LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024 Consumer Law — Manufacturing defects — Vitrified tiles —The petitioner alleged a manufacturing defect in vitrified tiles purchased for his house — The complaint was supported by a scientific test report from the Central Glass and Ceramic Research Institute —Whether the tiles were defective and if the scientific report was accurate — Petitioner states that the tiles were defective as proven by the scientific report — The size discrepancy was due to a typographical error — Respondent argues that t India Law Library Docid # 2416972
(243) JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024 Insurance Policy —The case involves an insurance claim by the nominee of an insurance policy taken ‘M’ who passed away shortly after the policy was issued — The main issue is whether the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim based on alleged suppression of the insured's true age — The petitioner argued that the age proof was provided through an affidavit and medical certificate, and the insurance was issued after medical examination — The respondent contended that the insured India Law Library Docid # 2416973
(244) SHIV KUMAR Vs. MR. ROHIT GOSWAMI[HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-08-2024 Consumer Law — Substandard Seeds — Appellant purchased 6 kg of onion seeds from — He claimed that the seeds were substandard, leading to a 75% loss in yield —The main issue was whether the seeds were of inferior quality and if the dealer or manufacturer was liable for the alleged loss — Petitioner argued that the seeds were defective, causing significant crop loss — He relied on a report from the Horticulture Development Officer to support his claim —Haryana Beej Company contended that the seeds India Law Library Docid # 2417707
(245) KISHOR V. PATIL AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. MARVEL ZETA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-08-2024 Consumer Law — Housing — The complainants filed a complaint against respondent for failing to hand over possession of flats and other issues related to a housing project in Pune — The main issues include delayed possession, non-provision of promised amenities, fraudulent land transfer, and compensation for harassment and mental agony — The complainants argued that the developers failed to deliver the flats on time, did not provide the promised amenities, and fraudulently transferred land to the India Law Library Docid # 2416967
(246) AKSHAY DOSHI Vs. G. SUNDAR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-08-2024 Consumer Law — Housing — The original complainant booked a flat in Mumbai, paid an advance, but did not receive possession or a formal agreement — The complainant passed away, and legal heirs continued the case —Whether the absence of a formal agreement invalidates the complainant's claim and if the State Commission had jurisdiction — Petitioner argues that no formal agreement existed, no privity of contract, and the project was not completed due to unavoidable circumstances — Respondent contend India Law Library Docid # 2416968
(247) CENTRAL ACADEMY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AJMER THROUGH PRESIDENT SMT. SHOBHA SUMAN MISHRA Vs. M/S. JAIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THROUGH PARTNER AJAY KUMAR JAIN[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Classification of “Consumer” — The appellant, an educational institution, filed a complaint against the respondent for poor construction work and financial losses — The State Commission dismissed the complaint, stating the appellant is not a "consumer" — Whether the appellant qualifies as a "consumer" and whether the complaint was filed within the limitation period — The appellant argued they are a consumer and the complaint was within the limitation period due to India Law Library Docid # 2416963
(248) UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. MR. MUZAMMIL AND ANOTHER[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 41 — Condonation of Delay — The Commission emphasized that the power to condone delay under Section 41 of the Act, 2019, is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously — The applicant must satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal — Mere negligence or lack of diligence on the part of the applicant does not constitute sufficient cause. India Law Library Docid # 2417703
(249) M/S. VATIKA LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. DR. KHOZEM A DIVAN AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-08-2024 Consumer Law — Housing — Delay in delivery of Flat — The complainant booked a residential unit with repondent company in 2007, with possession promised by 2010 — The project was delayed, and the complainant sought a refund with interest — Delay in possession, non-fulfillment of agreement terms, and whether the complainant is entitled to a refund and compensation — Respondent argued that the complainant was not a consumer, possession was offered, and no Occupation Certificate was required — The c India Law Library Docid # 2416964
(250) BAIBHAB SUR Vs. SWAPAN SENGUPT AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-08-2024 Consumer Law — Housing — The appellant entered into agreements for a flat and car parking space but did not receive possession despite paying 90% of the consideration —The main issue is the delay in handing over possession and the demand for additional payment by the developer — The court directed the respondents to hand over possession within two months, compensate for the delay, and pay litigation costs — The court referenced previous judgments, emphasizing that buyers should not wait indefini India Law Library Docid # 2416965
(251) VICE CHAIRMAN, LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS Vs. ALOK SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-08-2024 Consumer Law — Housing — Incomplete Construction — The appellant allotted a house to the respondent in 1991, but failed to complete the construction — The respondent paid the full consideration but did not receive the house — Whether the appellant was deficient in service and liable for compensation due to the incomplete construction and failure to hand over the house — The appellant argued that the project was delayed due to the contractor’s negligence and offered a refund, which was refused by India Law Library Docid # 2416966
(252) LATE SH. SURESH CHAND GUPTA THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-08-2024 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay —NCDRC dismissed the petition and the accompanying application for condonation of delay due to insufficient cause — The petitioner's legal representatives, sought to challenge an order from the State Commission Delhi but failed to do so within the statutory limitation period — The NCDRC, citing various Supreme Court judgments, emphasized that the law of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act must be applied rigorously, and condonation India Law Library Docid # 2416962
(253) MR. MAHINDER SINGH Vs. M/S MAGMA LEASING LTD.[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15 — Application for Condonation of Delay — The Commission held that applications for condonation of delay under the Act, 1986 must demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal — The term "sufficient cause" encompasses circumstances where the party was not negligent and acted in good faith, without any want of diligence. India Law Library Docid # 2417702
(254) VINOD KUMAR Vs. ROYALE EMPIRE AND OTHERS[CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-08-2024 Consumer Law — Housing — Non-delivery of possession — The complainant paid Rs. 50,25,000 for a residential unit in the "Royal Empire" project but did not receive possession by the promised date of 04.05.2015 — The main issue is the non-delivery of possession of the unit despite full payment — The complainant argued that despite paying the full amount, the possession was not delivered, causing financial loss and mental agony — The opposite parties did not appear in court to contest the allegation India Law Library Docid # 2417699
(255) MR. RAVI Vs. SARGAM INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15 — Application for Condonation of Delay — The Commission held that an application for condonation of delay must demonstrate "sufficient cause" for the delay in filing the appeal — "Sufficient cause" is not merely the absence of negligence or want of bona fides but requires a showing that the party was prevented from acting diligently due to circumstances beyond their control — The Commission referred to several judgments, including Basawaraj and Ors. vs. India Law Library Docid # 2417701
(256) MOHAMED ABBAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-07-2024 Consumer Law — Railways — The petitioner, a Railway employee, filed a complaint in 2005 alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service by Railway authorities — Whether the petitioner is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and if the District Forum has the authority to review its own orders — The petitioner argued that the respondents withheld medical records, violating regulations and constituting a deficiency in service — The respondents contended that the petitioner is not a co India Law Library Docid # 2416449
(257) GURVINDER KAUR Vs. DR. BHARTI GUPTA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-07-2024 Consumer Law — Medical Negligence — Petitioner underwent a C-section resulting in complications and subsequent surgeries — She alleged negligence by Respondent –Doctor — Whether there was medical negligence by respondent during the C-section, leading to the complainant's suffering — Petitioner claimed negligence and deficiency in service leading to severe health issues and financial loss — Respondent denied negligence, stating the surgery was conducted as per medical standards and that the compl India Law Library Docid # 2416450
(258) DR. AMBUJAKSHA SINHA MAHAPATRA AND ANOTHER Vs. AMALENDU BHATTACHARJEE[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-07-2024 Consumer Law — Medical Negligence — The complainant, suffering from abdominal pain, was diagnosed with acute pancreatitis by petitioners — Subsequent tests showed a normal pancreas, leading to allegations of wrong diagnosis and unnecessary expenses — Whether there was medical negligence by the doctor and the nursing home in diagnosing and treating the complainant — The diagnosis was based on clinical symptoms and standard medical protocols — The State Commission's decision was made without expe India Law Library Docid # 2416451
(259) STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. BIRESH CHANDRA GANGOPADHYAY AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-07-2024 Consumer Law — Banking — Premature closure of FD — The complainants, elderly customers of SBI, faced unauthorized withdrawals from their account, including premature closure of fixed deposits, due to compromised internet banking credentials — Whether the bank was negligent in allowing unauthorized access and if the complainants shared their credentials, leading to the fraud — The bank argued that the complainants were negligent in securing their credentials and that the transactions were authent India Law Library Docid # 2416452
(260) SREE KARUNA NURSING HOME & SCANNING CENTRE AND ANOTHER Vs. KAYALA TRINADHA SIVA SANKARA REDDY AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-07-2024 Consumer Law — Medical Negligence — The complainants, a couple, alleged negligence by the appellants (a nursing home and a doctor) for failing to detect a congenital deformity in their unborn child during a TIFFA scan — Whether the appellants were negligent in their service and if the compensation awarded by the State Commission was justified — The appellants argued that the scan was conducted at an advanced stage of pregnancy (26 weeks), making it difficult to detect deformities — They also co India Law Library Docid # 2416453