(501) SUBHAM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS Vs. RUCHI SONI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act Delay in Filing Appeal Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause, meaning the party was not negligent or acting without bona fide. India Law Library Docid # 2414359
(502) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. GIRI RAJ PRASAD[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Order of State Commission — Upheld — Insurance claim repudiated on grounds of delay in intimation to police and insurance company — State Commission allowed appeal, finding delay not attributable to complainant and citing Supreme Court judgment that in theft claims, policy violations are not paramount — District Forum had dismissed complaint due to delay in FIR and intimation. India Law Library Docid # 2414360
(503) SHARDA VINOD BHATIA Vs. TATA MOTORS LIMITED AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 13(1)(c) — Defect in goods — Determination of — Expert opinion — Requirement for establishing manufacturing defect — Unless an expert opinion from an authorized laboratory or recognized government authority is procured and presented, a claim of manufacturing defect cannot be substantiated — Complainant's failure to obtain and present such an opinion is fatal to their claim for refund of purchase price. India Law Library Docid # 2414361
(504) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. IMRAN KHAN[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of — Petitioners sought to revise order passed by State Commission which upheld District Forum's decision allowing death benefit claim against insurance company — Respondent argued that State Commission did not commit jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice and that grounds for revision were not novel. — Held, Petitioner's arguments were considered and found to be legally tenable, leading to allowance of the revisio India Law Library Docid # 2414362
(505) BANK OF BARODA, BRANCH NARAHI AND OTHER Vs. OMANTH CHATTERJEE S/O LATE V.C. CHATERJEE[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019 Section 2(1)(g) Deficiency in Service Hacking of Bank Account RBI Circular on Zero Liability State Commission's order based solely on RBI Circular without analyzing evidence Held, order unsustainable for want of reasons and material evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2414353
(506) P. TULASIDAS Vs. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 26 — Frivolous or vexatious complaint — complainant impleading numerous unrelated individuals, including dignitaries and judges, with baseless allegations of bribe and conspiracy beyond the scope of the Act. Such actions constitute abuse of judicial process. India Law Library Docid # 2414354
(507) BANK OF BARODA Vs. R. VENKATESWARA RAO[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 & 2019 Definition of Consumer Employee-employer relationship Disciplinary proceedings Deduction of funds Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum Held, a dispute arising from disciplinary proceedings against an employee of a bank, where a deduction from the employee's account is made in accordance with the disciplinary authority's order, does not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The relationship in such cases is governed by the contract of service, India Law Library Docid # 2414352
(508) 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
(509) 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
(510) 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
(511) 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
(512) 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
(513) 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
(514) 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
(515) 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
(516) 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
(517) 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
(518) 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
(519) 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
(520) 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