(361) KAPIL VERMA Vs. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Insurance Policy Breach of Fundamental Condition Repudiation of Claim Vehicle involved in an accident was plying without a valid route permit, which constitutes a fundamental breach of the insurance policy. The Insurance Company was therefore justified in repudiating the claim. India Law Library Docid # 2416458
(362) THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. AMITA DHIMAN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Challenging order of State Commission upholding District Commission's order — Petitioner sought setting aside of both orders. India Law Library Docid # 2416459
(363) TOWN IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. ANITA RANI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 24A, 12 — Deficiency in service — Unfair trade practice — Delay in possession — Failure to provide amenities — Unreasonable delay in handing over possession of flats, failure to provide essential amenities like water, drainage, and electricity, and charging extra for stilt parking without adequate provision constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. India Law Library Docid # 2416463
(364) TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. RAJENDER SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — National Commission's power is limited to cases where State Commission acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Interference is only warranted if findings are against law, pleadings, evidence, or are perverse — Concurrent findings of fact by lower forums based on appreciation of evidence are generally not to be disturbed in revision. India Law Library Docid # 2416464
(365) KOTAK MAHINDRA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. DR. CAPT. S. SRINIVASAN[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 19 — Appeal against State Commission Order — First Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. India Law Library Docid # 2416465
(366) SAYANTI DUTTA AND OTHERS Vs. SAMIR MAJUMDAR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — First Appeal — Delay in filing — Delay of 185 days condoned as it occurred during the period of suspended limitation due to COVID-19. India Law Library Docid # 2416466
(367) POLICE DEPARTMENT Vs. LOVEPREET SINGH AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d), Section 21(b) — "Service" — "Deficiency in service" — Deductions from salary for insurance premium — Police department stopping deductions on alleged oral request of deceased employee — Whether police department providing "service" under the Act — Department's failure to obtain written instructions for stopping deductions and not intimating employee about cessation of deductions constitutes deficiency in service — State Commission's order holding India Law Library Docid # 2416460
(368) KAMAL NARAYAN VERMA Vs. GAYATRI HOSPITAL AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — National Commission's powers are very limited — Can only interfere if State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally/with material irregularity — Cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact on appreciation of evidence unless such conditions are met. India Law Library Docid # 2416461
(369) CA RAMAKANT G SOMANI S/O. GANGABISHAN SOMANI Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-07-2024 Insurance Act, 1938 — Section 45 — Misstatement or suppression of material facts — Repudiation of life insurance claim — Policyholder's husband claimed life insurance after death of his wife from cancer — Insurance company repudiated claim based on suppressed pre-existing heart condition from proposal form — Court found evidence from discharge summary of hospital indicating history of myocardial infarction, which was not disclosed in proposal form answering "no" to heart disease question — Non-d India Law Library Docid # 2416467
(370) SURINDER KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of revisional jurisdiction — Limited to cases where State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested by law, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Interference only warranted if findings are against law, pleadings, evidence, or are perverse. India Law Library Docid # 2416468
(371) NEW DELHI INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES Vs. SHAMANESHWARAM AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Revisionary jurisdiction of National Commission — Limited scope — Interference only if State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Cannot interfere with concurrent findings on appreciation of evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2416469
(372) CHANDRA PRAKASH AND ANOTHER Vs. CHANDER CLINIC AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Medical Negligence Standard of Proof Burden of proof on hospital to show no negligence Once patient dies due to lack of proper care, burden shifts to hospital to justify. India Law Library Docid # 2416473
(373) SMT. SURESH RANI THROUGH SHRI ROHIT GOYAL Vs. KAILASH HOSPITAL AND HEART INSTITUTE AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2024 Medical Negligence Drug Administration Use of Lasix and Mannitol for hypertension and cerebral edema respectively, when administered with cautious monitoring and in line with medical protocols, is not considered negligent. India Law Library Docid # 2416470
(374) RANI CHILDREN HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. RAJESH KUMAR JHA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 19 — Cross appeals filed challenging State Commission's order partly allowing complaint and seeking enhancement of compensation. India Law Library Docid # 2416471
(375) INDUMATI Vs. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2024 Insurance Act, 1938 — Section 45 — Policy conditions — Repudiation of claim — Non-disclosure of material facts — Deceased insured, a doctor, failed to disclose previous history of pleural effusion and tuberculosis treatment, and hospitalization for metabolic encephalopathy in the proposal form — Omission to disclose these ailments, particularly tuberculosis, was deliberate and fraudulent, as it could affect the risk profile and potentially lead to rejection or higher premium — Medical examinatio India Law Library Docid # 2416472
(376) SWARJEET SAGI AND OTHERS Vs. D. SRINIVAS AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in service — Misjoinder of parties — Liability of partners for firm's actions — Parties claimed they were not partners of the development firm, GHARONDA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS — They argued they were wrongly included as opposite parties in the complaint — Although their right to file a written version was forfeited and their appeals against dismissal of applications were dismissed, the court noted lack of evidence proving their partne India Law Library Docid # 2416090
(377) BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD Vs. BEDAMO DEVI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Limited Scope — National Commission's power to revise is very limited and mainly applies when State Commission has acted beyond its jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted with illegality or material irregularity — Concurrent findings of facts by lower forums are generally not to be interfered with in revision. India Law Library Docid # 2416092
(378) SHANKAR SARAN Vs. CHAIRMAN APOLLO HOSPITALS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r) — Deficiency in service — Unfair trade practice — Compulsory registration fee — Hospital's requirement of registration and charging a fee for it before medical consultation does not amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice if the patient is informed about it and it's for preserving patient details for future reference, especially when the patient is not in an emergency situation. India Law Library Docid # 2416093
(379) IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. HARMANPREET SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Jurisdiction — No illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error found in the State Commission's order warranting interference in revision. India Law Library Docid # 2416094
(380) DR. UMA ARORA Vs. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Jurisdiction — Multiple opposite parties — Where one of the opposite parties is declared to be a co-service provider, proceedings can continue against it even if another opposite party is subject to moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. India Law Library Docid # 2416095