(481) OM PRAKASH UPADHYAYA AND OTHERS Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against order of State Commission — Standard of proof for concealment of material facts — Insurance contract is of utmost good faith — Duty of proposer to disclose all material facts affecting the risk — Suppression of facts in proposal form renders policy voidable by the insurer — Non-disclosure of pre-existing medical conditions by the insured at the time of obtaining policies justified repudiation of claim. India Law Library Docid # 2414367
(482) UCO BANK Vs. BALWANT SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Setting aside of State Commission's order — Consumer — Loan agreement — Interest rate — Processing fee — Loan account treated as NPA — Discrimination — Deficiency in service — Unfair trade practice — Adherence to contract terms — Floating interest rate — Lack of transparency — Grounds for revision petition. India Law Library Docid # 2414368
(483) UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE ''ANDHRA BANK'') Vs. SRI KASI VISWANATHA FERTILISERS AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) & Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction of National Commission — Scope is limited — National Commission can only intervene if State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact and appreciation of evidence by lower forums. India Law Library Docid # 2414369
(484) DIEBOLD NIXDORF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-04-2024 Insurance law — Consumer protection — Commercial purpose exclusion — A contract of insurance is for indemnity and not profit, thus a company engaged in commercial activities obtaining insurance does not fall under the exclusion clause for commercial purposes as a consumer. India Law Library Docid # 2414364
(485) MASTER NEIL MENDONSA (MINOR), THROUGH MRS. INDU MENDONSA AND OTHERS Vs. DR. EGBERT SALDANHA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — A doctor is not liable for negligence if they follow a practice acceptable to the medical profession at that time, even if a better alternative existed. The standard of care is judged by the knowledge available at the time of the incident, not the time of trial. India Law Library Docid # 2414365
(486) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. JAWAHAR LAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) Revision Petition Order of State Commission upheld. The petition challenged the State Commission's order directing the Insurance Company to pay Own Damages claim. The revision was against the State Commission's decision that reversed the District Forum's dismissal of the complaint. The revision was dismissed, upholding the State Commission's order. India Law Library Docid # 2414366
(487) KULDEEP CHAND DATTA AND OTHERS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary jurisdiction — Revisional court to examine whether the order of the State Commission is sustainable or not on merits. India Law Library Docid # 2414363
(488) THE REGISTRAR/MANAGER, CHRISTANAND CHARITABLE TRUST HOSPITAL AND ANOTHER Vs. TULSHIRAM AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — State Commission order — District Forum order set aside — Complainant partly allowed appeal — Petitioner filed present revision petition against State Commission's order. India Law Library Docid # 2413998
(489) DARSHNIK MARKETING AND SERVICES PVT. LTD. Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Delay in filing — Delay condoned by the Commission while treating the petition as filed within limitation based on stated reasons. India Law Library Docid # 2413999
(490) RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PARIMALA GOTHE AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition challenging State Commission's order allowing reimbursement claimed under health policy — Health policy claimed for SPMF therapy for knee pain — District Forum dismissed complaint for not meeting 24-hour hospitalization requirement and treatment not listed under 'Day Care Treatment' — State Commission allowed appeal based on previous similar judgments and the principle that if a therapy is not specifically excluded and no expert e India Law Library Docid # 2414000
(491) SANJEEVANI EMERGENCY HOSPITAL Vs. P. NARSAIAH AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 19 — Appeal — Delay condoned on stating reasons in IA No. 4259/2019. India Law Library Docid # 2414001
(492) SAFDARJUNG HOSPITAL AND VMMC AND OTHERS Vs. ASHA GOYAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against State Commission's order — State Commission found medical negligence and awarded compensation —Appellant hospital challenged the finding of negligence on grounds of lack of independent expert opinion and failure to consider patient's past medical history — Held, State Commission's finding of negligence upheld. India Law Library Docid # 2414002
(493) SMT. ANJALI KIRAN PATIL AND ANOTHER Vs. SHRI JITENDRA N. MEHTA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service, Unfair Trade Practice — Flat Buyer-Developer Dispute — Preliminary objection regarding maintainability of complaint on grounds of Complainant being investor and not a consumer — Letter of allotment and acknowledgement of oral understanding for adjusting loan amount towards flat consideration establishes Complainant as a flat buyer — Burden on Opposite Party to prove otherwise is not discharged — Complaint held maintainable — Preliminary obje India Law Library Docid # 2413993
(494) MRS. SEHEHERAZEDE JAVERI AND OTHER Vs. CARE HOSPITAL (QUALITY CARE INDIA) AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-04-2024 Medical Negligence Hospital Associated Infection (HAI) Patient undergoing coronary surgery subsequently developed infections including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a hospital-acquired condition. The court found that these infections were likely caused by contaminated equipment used during treatment, leading to the patient's death. The hospital was held liable for deficiency in service due to lapses in hygiene and failure to prevent infections. India Law Library Docid # 2413994
(495) L & T FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. MEENAKSHI KUMARI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Powers — Limited Scope — Revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited and should be exercised only when there is a jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or illegal/irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission. India Law Library Docid # 2413995
(496) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS Vs. ROHIT MALHOTRA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Jurisdiction — Service matters — Retiral benefits — Pension dispute — Consumer Protection Act does not cover service matters or disputes regarding retiral benefits, which fall under service conditions and relevant rules — Government servants cannot raise such disputes before consumer forums; appropriate forums are Administrative Tribunals or Civil Courts. India Law Library Docid # 2413996
(497) CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RELIGARE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER Vs. HARJINDER SINGH SOHAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of revision — No illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error found in the State Commission's order, therefore, Revision Petition dismissed. India Law Library Docid # 2413997
(498) GAURAV MAHAJAN Vs. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (AIMS) AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-04-2024 Medical Negligence Myasthenia Gravis Oncologist's Role The complainant alleged that an Oncologist was negligent in treating his father for Myasthenia Gravis and failing to refer him to a Neurologist. The court found that an Oncologist with a qualification in Medicine could diagnose and treat general muscle weakness associated with Myasthenia, and in this case, the patient was eventually treated by Neurologists when a crisis occurred. The repeated visits to the same hospital and doctor suggest India Law Library Docid # 2413988
(499) KAILASH KUMARI Vs. M/S. OMAXE LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal — Standard of proof — Builder Buyer Agreement — Unilateral and unreasonable terms imposed by builder on allottee are not binding — Court also observed that the developer cannot compel apartment buyers to be bound by one-sided contractual terms contained in apartment buyers agreements. India Law Library Docid # 2413989
(500) HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. IRAPPA HANAMAPPA SHEBANNAVAR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Condonation of Delay — Sufficient Cause — The petitioner filed a revision petition with a significant delay of 341 days, which, even after excluding periods related to COVID-19, amounted to 92 days. The reasons provided for the delay, including seeking original documents and awaiting advice, were found to be unconvincing. India Law Library Docid # 2413990