(361) DR. SOUMITRA KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI DEBASHIS GOSWAMI AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Caesarean Section (LUCS) — Amniotic Fluid Embolism (AFE) — Anaesthesia Complications — Determination of medical negligence against treating Obstetrician/Gynaecologist (OP-1) and Hospital (OP-2) following maternal death post-Caesarean section, where the stated cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to Amniotic Fluid Embolism (AFE) — Assessment of whether the standard of care was breached during the surgery (alleged India Law Library Docid # 2424524
(362) GETWELL HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. SATYAWAN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Diagnosis and Treatment — Intestinal Damage — Tuberculosis (TB) — Determination of medical negligence against Petitioner Hospital (OP-1) and Doctor (OP-2) where the Complainant alleged that improper treatment/medication for fever and abdominal pain during a short admission (3-7 days) led to intestinal damage requiring surgery at another hospital (SDMH) — Assessment of whether OP-1/OP-2 failed to diagnose a pre-existing India Law Library Docid # 2424525
(363) ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (R.P.L.I.) AND ANOTHER Vs. VITHAL KISAN KHAMKAR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-02-2025 Insurance Law (Rural Postal Life Insurance - RPLI) — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Policy Lapse (Rule 39(1)) vs. Acceptance of Late Premium — Estoppel/Waiver — Determination of validity of Rural Postal Life Insurance policy claim where premiums were paid and accepted significantly beyond the due date and grace period, allegedly causing the policy to lapse under applicable rules (Rule 39(1)) due to non-payment within six months of the due date — Whether the Postal Department (Petitioners) is e India Law Library Docid # 2424526
(364) ABHIJIT SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Insurance Law — Annuity Policy — Interpretation — Option Selection (Lifetime Income vs. Capital Refund) — Ambiguity — Contra Proferentem — Determination of the operative annuity option (Option 1.1 - Lifetime Income only vs. Option 1.2 - Lifetime Income with Capital Refund) where the proposal form, signed by the deceased policyholder, indicated Option 1.1 was ticked, but also contained nominations for beneficiaries (a feature associated with Option 1.2 but arguabl India Law Library Docid # 2424527
(365) M/S. HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. THROUGH ITS COMPANY SECRETARY Vs. PREM LATA BANSAL AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 21(b), 24A — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Limitation Period — Continuous Cause of Action — Delay in transfer of shares by OP since 1998, with final delivery in 2006, constituting a continuous deficiency in service — Complaint filed in 2007 held to be within the limitation period as it relates to the last act of deficiency. India Law Library Docid # 2422864
(366) DIRECTOR STATE INSURANCE AND PROVIDENT FUND DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER Vs. MURARI LAL AGARWAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Limited Scope — National Commission's revisional powers are restricted to cases where the State Commission has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or illegally or with material irregularity — Cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless these parameters are met. India Law Library Docid # 2422865
(367) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER AND OTHERS Vs. IQBAL AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(c), 2(1)(d), 19, Section 2(1)(c) — Complaint Filing — Authorisation — Purchaser was proprietor of company, not contested by insurer before State Commission — Not considered challenge to complaint filing. India Law Library Docid # 2422866
(368) M/S. SAMTA MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY Vs. NARENDER AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Limited Scope — National Commission's revisional powers are limited to jurisdictional errors or illegal/irregular exercise of jurisdiction by lower fora, not to re-appreciate concurrent findings of fact based on evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2422863
(369) ASHOK AGARWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. ARUN KUMAR PAREEK AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petitioner against State Commission's Revisional Order — Maintainability — A second revision petition against an order passed by a State Commission in its revisional jurisdiction is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. India Law Library Docid # 2422862
(370) VIRUPAMMA Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2025 Insurable Interest — Non-disclosure — HIV infection — Deceased tested negative for HIV via Tri-dot method before policy issuance — Later tested positive after policy issuance — Insurance company repudiated claim citing non-disclosure of material fact — Court found no evidence of suppression as deceased was unaware of infection at time of application — Medical report confirmed negative test result was in accordance with protocol — Repudiation unjustified. India Law Library Docid # 2422860
(371) INTERNATIONAL CARS AND MOTORS LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. MALINI SHAJU AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(f) "defect" and Definition of "manufacturing defect" Expert report did not equate observed defects with manufacturing defects, despite vehicle's age and usage of 90,000 km. Held that defects, while present, were not proven to be manufacturing defects by the expert. India Law Library Docid # 2422861
(372) M/S. C.B. GRANITE THROUGH SHRI BHUPENDRA SINGH Vs. U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — "Consumer" — Commercial Purpose — Granite crusher unit powered by 98 HP electricity connection, employing multiple people, is not for self-employment for livelihood but for large-scale business, thus not a "consumer" under the Act. India Law Library Docid # 2422857
(373) M/S. SAVITRI FILLING STATION Vs. SANDEEP YADAV[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition challenging State Commission order setting aside District Forum order — Dispute regarding scope of contract for petrol pump work — Petitioner alleged respondent failed to lay tiles as per agreement — Respondent claimed contract included laying of vapsi rori and petitioner failed to make balance payment — District Forum favored petitioner, State Commission favored respondent — National Commission found State Commission's order reas India Law Library Docid # 2422858
(374) CTR MANUFACTURING IND. LTD. THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. MRUTYUNJAY PRASAD AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Interference by higher forum — Reassessment of evidence — Higher forum in revisional jurisdiction should not re-assess or re-appreciate evidence when lower forums have concurrent findings of fact — Interference is only justified if findings are perverse or lower forums acted without jurisdiction. India Law Library Docid # 2422859
(375) M/S OM SHRIM DEVELOPERS THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND OTHERS Vs. BALVINDER SINGH NEEL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-01-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Sufficient Cause — Appellants sought condonation of 541 days delay in filing appeal — Appellants claimed ignorance due to judicial custody of key personnel — Evidence showed execution of Vakalatnama by appellant no. 2 while in custody, indicating knowledge of proceedings — Bail order of another appellant also mentioned pendency of consumer complaint — Court found appellants' explanations to be incorrect and misleading, and not constitutin India Law Library Docid # 2422852
(376) PURAB D. SHAH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-01-2025 Insurance — Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy — Claim for loss due to fire — Complainant's claim vs. Surveyor's assessment — Insurer paid part of claim, dispute over remaining amount — Owed balance amount with interest. India Law Library Docid # 2422853
(377) VIKAS CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Delay in filing — Condonation — Delay of 22 days in filing the Revision Petition was condoned in the interest of justice. India Law Library Docid # 2422854
(378) DR. A.K. RAI Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Delay condoned — Parties referred to complaint before District Forum — Complainant vs. Opposite Party (Hospital/Doctor). India Law Library Docid # 2422855
(379) KARAN AHUJA Vs. BANK OF BARODA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Jurisdiction — National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. India Law Library Docid # 2422856
(380) SHO, GOVT. RAILWAY POLICE Vs. G. SAI KUMAR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(c), 2(1)(d), 2(1)(o) Complaint Consumer Service Law enforcement agencies like the Police Department, performing sovereign functions, are not service providers under the Act and thus consumer complaints are not maintainable against them for deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2422850