(501) M/S. BHUPINDER TYRES WORKS Vs. NEW INDIAASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal — Filing delay — Condonation — Delay of 7 days in filing First Appeal — Condoned for reasons stated in application. India Law Library Docid # 2416455
(502) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NOVEX ENTERPRISES[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 17 — Appeal against State Commission order — Insurance claim for damaged goods due to rain — Repudiation by insurer citing non-compliance with surveyor's document requests — State Commission directed payment of loss and compensation — Insurance company appealed, arguing cryptic order and lack of expert opinion — Held, State Commission's order was reasoned after remand and provided grounds for decision — Surveyor's report acknowledged receipt of documents, India Law Library Docid # 2416456
(503) BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA (FORMALLY VIJAYA BANK) Vs. SURESH BALIGA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service — Insurance — Bank's role as proposer — A Jeweller obtained a Jeweller's Block Policy from an insurance company. The policy was negotiated and the proposal form was filled by the Branch Manager of the appellant Bank. The policy only covered premises at Door No. 4-108, but the burglary occurred at Door No. 4-111, which housed the Jeweller's main business and stock. The insurance company repudiated the claim because the damaged premises were no India Law Library Docid # 2416462
(504) DAGA AUTO DISTRIBUTORS Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURNACE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-07-2024 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Explanation for delay was inadequate and unconvincing, particularly given the appellant's business background. Although COVID-19 related extensions were claimed, the period between September 2019 and March 2020 remained unexplained. India Law Library Docid # 2416457
(505) 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
(506) 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
(507) 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
(508) 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
(509) 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
(510) 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
(511) 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
(512) 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
(513) 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
(514) 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
(515) 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
(516) 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
(517) 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
(518) 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
(519) 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
(520) 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