(341) M/S. INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS INDIA LTD. Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-03-2025 Insurance Law — Marine-cum-Erection All Risk Policy — Additional Customs Duty (ACD) Endorsement — Escalation Endorsement — Interpretation — Scope of Coverage — An Additional Customs Duty (ACD) endorsement in a Marine-cum-Erection (MCE) policy, providing indemnification for ACD incurred over and above the duty factored into the original sum insured, operates independently of any Escalation Endorsement (providing for increased cost up to a certain percentage —The ACD endorsement covers the actual India Law Library Docid # 2424504
(342) SUB POST MASTER Vs. RAKESH KUMAR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-03-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g), 2(1)(d) — Deficiency in Service — Postal Department — Loss of Speed Post Article — Indian Post Office Act, 1898 — Section 6 — Immunity — Insurance — The loss of a Speed Post article (a laptop being returned by the complainant to the seller) by the postal department constitutes deficiency in service — The immunity provided under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 for loss, misdelivery, or delay of postal articles is not applicable to def India Law Library Docid # 2424505
(343) BITTAN KASHYAP Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-03-2025 Insurance Law — Standard Fire Policy — Description of Risk — Mistake in Policy — Stocks vs. Godown Building — Liability of Insurer and Bank (as Agent) — IRDA Regulations — Proposal Form — Where a fire policy, obtained by a bank as agent for the borrower (complainant) to insure a godown constructed with a bank loan and hypothecated to the bank, erroneously describes the risk covered as “stocks” instead of the “godown building”, both the insurer and the bank (acting as agent) are jointly India Law Library Docid # 2424506
(344) SMT. URMILA CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. DR. ATUL CHABBRA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (corresponding to Section 340, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) — Section 340 — Perjury — Initiation of Proceedings — Scope in Consumer Complaints — Medical Negligence — An application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against opposite parties (doctor and hospital) in a pending consumer complaint alleging medical negligence, based on allegations regarding the doctor's educational qualifications, alleged manipulation of reco India Law Library Docid # 2424507
(345) GLOBE ECOLOSGISTICS PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S. GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PVT. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-03-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Jurisdiction of State Commission — Coram Requirement — Sections 14(2), 16, 18 — Whether an order passed by a single Member (Judicial) of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission disposing of a consumer complaint is valid and within jurisdiction, in light of the composition and procedure requirements under Sections 14(2), 14(2A), 16 and 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which arguably mandate a Bench of at least two members (President and one India Law Library Docid # 2424508
(346) APOLLO HOSPITAL Vs. NAGORAO AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Post-Surgical Complications — Ryle's Tube Misplacement — Determination of medical negligence against Petitioner hospital (OP-2) in the treatment of a patient with advanced throat cancer (Stage IV Hypopharynx) who developed complications (esophageal perforation, pyopneumothorax) following endoscopic dilation in 2006 — Assessment of alleged failure to exercise standard care during insertion of Ryle’s tube (feeding tube), speci India Law Library Docid # 2424517
(347) RAM PRIT ROY Vs. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction — Interference with Concurrent Findings — Extent of the National Commission's power under Section 21(b) to interfere with concurrent findings of fact rendered by the District Forum and the State Commission — Whether the National Commission can re-assess or re-appreciate evidence on record in revisional jurisdiction when the findings below are based on evidence and documents, in the absence of demonstrated India Law Library Docid # 2424509
(348) DHL COURIER THROUGH DHL EXPRESS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. BAKSHI ENTERPRISES[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d)(ii) — ‘Consumer’ — ‘Service for Commercial Purpose’ Exclusion — International Exhibition — Whether a business entity (respondent) availing international courier services (appellant) to transport goods for display and promotion at an international trade exhibition, with the objective of promoting sales and business, does so for a "commercial purpose" within the meaning of the exclusion clause inserted by the 2002 amendment to Section 2(1)(d)(ii), th India Law Library Docid # 2424510
(349) NILKANTH BIKARAM BHALAVI (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS Vs. M/S. A.K. GANDHI CARS AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(r) (Unfair Trade Practice) & Section 2(1)(g) (Deficiency in Service) — Sale of Old Vehicle as New — Allegation that a vehicle manufactured in the previous calendar year (2007) was sold and delivered as a new vehicle in the subsequent year (June 2008) at the price of a new model — Consideration of evidence suggesting the vehicle was not new or was previously allocated, such as erasure marks (whitener use) over a previous name in the service manual, fre India Law Library Docid # 2424511
(350) SHEKHWATI JANANA HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE AND ANOTHER Vs. ASHOK KUMAR BHATI AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Breach of Duty — Haemorrhagic Shock in Pregnancy — Determination of medical negligence in the treatment of a critically ill pregnant patient (8 months gestation, Hb 3, severe bleeding, haemorrhagic shock) admitted to Petitioner No. 1 hospital — Allegations against treating doctors and hospital include: administering wrong blood group (based on alleged nurse statement); improper handling/storage/transfusion of blood (allegedl India Law Library Docid # 2424512
(351) INDIAN BANK AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. T. SREEKALA PUTHUPURACKAL HOUSE[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Banking Services — Home Loan Insurance (Mortgage Redemption Assurance) — IB Griha Jeevan Policy — Determination of deficiency in service against the Appellant Bank concerning the non-availability of life insurance coverage under the 'IB Griha Jeevan Policy' for a home loan availed by the Respondent/Complainant's late husband — Dispute centered on whether the loan sanctioned on 22.12.2008 fell under the Bank's 'Special Home Loan Scheme' (lau India Law Library Docid # 2424513
(352) BABU SINGH SOLANKI Vs. MAX SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Complex Co-morbidities — Deferred Surgery — Cardiac Arrest — Determination of medical negligence in the treatment of a patient with a complex history (Pulmonary Blastoma, Synovial Carcinoma, post-chemo/radiotherapy) admitted for kidney stone removal — Assessment includes: adequacy of pre-operative evaluation identifying severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction (LVEF 25-30%); appropriateness of deferring planned surgery due to hig India Law Library Docid # 2424514
(353) SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, HARDOI DIVISION, HARDOI, UP. AND ANOTHER Vs. SHASHI KANT BAJPAI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Procedure — Res Judicata — Procedural Bar — Maintainability of Fresh Complaint after Dismissal for Default — Whether a fresh consumer complaint is maintainable on the same cause of action after a previous complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution and an application for its restoration was also dismissed, considering the principle that dismissal in default does not constitute a decision on merits barring a subsequent suit/complaint. India Law Library Docid # 2424515
(354) JAI PRAKASH YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. RAVI GAS AGENCY AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Negligence — LPG Supply — Fire Accident — Causation — Determination of liability of Gas Agency and Oil Marketing Company for a fire accident allegedly caused by leakage from a supplied LPG cylinder, resulting in burn injuries to Complainant No. 3 and property damage — Assessment of conflicting claims regarding the cause: alleged defective cylinder versus consumer's alleged use of unauthorized/non-standard regulator and pipe — Consideration India Law Library Docid # 2424516
(355) VINOD KALRA Vs. AMAZON RETAIL INDIA PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 47(2) & 58(2) — Jurisdiction of State/National Commission — Constitution of Benches — Single Member Bench Validity — Determination of whether an order passed by a single Member (President) of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is valid under Section 47(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which provides for constitution of Benches by the President "with one or more members" — Petitioner contended this violates the Act, arguing a minimum t India Law Library Docid # 2424518
(356) M/S. AUTOPACE NETWORK (P) LTD. Vs. KARAMJIT SINGH RUDRA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in Service — Sale of Vehicle — Delayed Handover of Ownership Documents: Determination of whether an authorized car dealer (Petitioner) committed deficiency in service by withholding the delivery of vehicle ownership documents for a period (approx. 9 days) after the vehicle itself was delivered and full payment was received from the consumer (Respondent No. 1), allegedly due to the consumer's delay in providing specific proof (salary sl India Law Library Docid # 2424519
(357) RAJ KUMAR Vs. SARVODYA HOSPITAL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Severe Crush Injury — Limb Salvage vs. Amputation — Post-Operative Management — Discharge Status — Determination of medical negligence against Respondent hospital (OP-1) and doctors (OP-2, OP-3) in managing a severe limb crush injury (comminuted fracture, vascular deficit, 90% detachment) sustained in an RTA — Assessment of whether the decision to attempt limb salvage surgery (at relatives' alleged insistence despite amputat India Law Library Docid # 2424520
(358) BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Insurance Law — Motor Vehicle Insurance — Repudiation of Claim (Fire Damage) — Breach of Policy Conditions — Unauthorized Modifications — Justification — Determination of whether the insurer (Petitioner/OP-1) was justified in repudiating the claim for fire damage to the insured vehicle based on the ground that the fire was caused by unauthorized electrical modifications (non-genuine rear camera, non-OE roof light, tampering with wiring harness/adding wire bridges) India Law Library Docid # 2424521
(359) JOHNSON CONTROLS-HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING INDIA LTD. Vs. SMT. SALY SUNNY AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Agency Law — Contract Act, 1872 — Vicarious Liability of Principal (Manufacturer) for Acts of Dealer —Agent — Proof of Agency — Determination of whether the manufacturer (Petitioners/OP-2 & 3) can be held vicariously liable for the failure of a local supplier/installer (OP-1) to fulfil a contract (supply and installation of AC units) entered into with the consumer (Complainant), despite the consumer having paid substantial amounts to OP-1 — Assessment based on whe India Law Library Docid # 2424522
(360) SH. RAKESH KUMAR JHA Vs. HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(f) & 2(1)(g) — Defect in Goods — Deficiency in Service — Sale of Motorcycle — Manufacturing Defect vs. Repairable Defects — Determination of whether multiple issues reported by the Complainant soon after purchasing a new motorcycle (gear problems, excessive smoke, engine heating, noisy self-starter/shockers, defective wiring) constituted inherent manufacturing defects warranting replacement, or were merely repairable defects — Consideration of the OPs India Law Library Docid # 2424523