(581) BASANTA MOHAPATRA AND ANOTHER Vs. DR. ANURADHA MITTAL, MD (PAEDIATRIC) AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 24(2)A Limitation period Complaint filed after considerable delay in obtaining documents due to non-cooperation from hospital and CMO RTI application filed within two years of patient's death to secure necessary documents Complaint filed shortly after receiving documents Held, delay in filing complaint explained and justified due to procedural hurdles in obtaining essential information Complaint considered within limitation period. India Law Library Docid # 2402815
(582) SUPERB MRI AND C.T. SCAN Vs. KANAV CHOPRA (MINOR) AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Deficiency in Service — Radiology Report Accuracy — A scanning centre's MRI report was alleged to be incorrect, delaying timely treatment and causing loss of eyesight. The State Commission found negligence and awarded compensation, which was challenged. The appellant argued there was no negligence as the initial MRI was routine and based on a voluntary request, and subsequent doctors did not suspect a growth. However, later expert reviews of t India Law Library Docid # 2402816
(583) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS Vs. H.P. LATHA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeals by Insurance Company — Delay in filing — Condonation — Appeals filed after 88 days delay — Delay condoned based on applications filed by the appellant. India Law Library Docid # 2402818
(584) PRAMOD KHUSHWAH Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of — Revisional jurisdiction of National Commission is limited to cases where the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2402819
(585) LAXMI MAHILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. Vs. POPAT MARUTI CHAVAN (THROUGH LRS.) AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d)(ii) — Definition of "Consumer" — Employee status — Whether an employee seeking retirement benefits from an employer falls within the definition of a "consumer" under the Act — Held, an employee seeking retiral benefits is not a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and the Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to entertain such disputes. India Law Library Docid # 2402820
(586) SAHEDUL RAHMAN Vs. PRATAP SINGH ASWAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 21(b), 19A, Rule 15(6) of Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 — Revision Petition against dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution — Supreme Court judgments on dismissal on merits vs. default — Consumer Forum procedure for appeals — Held State Commission has discretion to dismiss for non-prosecution or decide ex-parte on merits if appellant fails to appear after reasonable opportunity. India Law Library Docid # 2402821
(587) VIJAY KAPOOR (SENIOR CITIZEN) Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.[GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 2(11) — Deficiency in service — Discontinuance of insurance policy — Discontinuation of a medical insurance scheme by an insurer does not constitute a deficiency in service as defined in Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, especially when advance notice was given to policyholders and alternative migration options were provided. India Law Library Docid # 2402604
(588) MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JALORE AND OTHERS Vs. ALLAHBUX AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Revisionary powers of National Commission — Scope is limited — Can be exercised only if there is a prima facie jurisdictional error, or if the State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Concurrent findings of fact by lower Fora should generally not be interfered with. India Law Library Docid # 2418427
(589) ASHWINDER KAUR AND OTHER Vs. OMAXE CHANDIGARH EXTENSION DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD[CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T.] 15-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Incomplete Construction — Claim for Commitment Charges — Where complainants made full payment after receiving offer of possession and failed to provide cogent documentary proof of incomplete construction, their claim for commitment charges beyond offer of possession is not tenable. India Law Library Docid # 2402597
(590) YES BANK LIMITED Vs. SHASHI KUMAR AND OTHER[CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T.] 15-02-2024 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Bank's responsibility — Bank hired courier services not the complainant — Bank is liable for loss of cheque by courier — Mere loss of cheque does not prevent filing of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act using copies of documents, but bank cannot be absolved of deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2402598
(591) BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD Vs. MRS. KIRAN SINGH[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Jurisdiction of Consumer Courts Power Bills Consumer courts cannot entertain complaints against power bills assessed under the Electricity Act. India Law Library Docid # 2402600
(592) MR. SATISH KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. RAMA PALACES AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in Service — Definition — Fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in quality, nature, or manner of performance of service undertaken by contract — Failure to deliver possession of property within stipulated period constitutes deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2402601
(593) MR. RAJESH MALIK AND OTHER Vs. RUDRA BUILD WELL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24A — Limitation Period — Failure to deliver possession of flat is a continuous wrong and constitutes a recurrent cause of action — Complainants can approach consumer courts as long as possession is not delivered. India Law Library Docid # 2402602
(594) ANKIT KHURANA Vs. SIKKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of 'consumer' — Booking a flat for personal use, even with part-payment, qualifies a person as a consumer for the purposes of the Act. India Law Library Docid # 2402603
(595) PRADEEP DAYMA Vs. UNITY EARTHTECH AND OTHERS[HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019 — Insurance Claim — Delayed Intimation — Contractual Obligation — Repudiation of claim on ground of delayed intimation is not justified even if there is a delay of 27 days when the word "immediately" in the policy is interpreted elastically, and a specific period of 14 days for intimation is mentioned in condition 6, meaning a delay of only 13 days is legally significant. India Law Library Docid # 2402605
(596) ARIF YUSUF BOOKWALA AND OTHERS Vs. HONGKONG AND SHANGAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-02-2024 Consumer Protection — Deficiency in Service — Credit Card Operations — Bank's liability for malfunctioning credit cards due to alleged technical glitches accepted by the bank, despite pleas of it being unintentional and beyond its control. India Law Library Docid # 2402576
(597) P. DAVID WILDSON Vs. JANANI HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum Arbitration Clause An arbitration clause in an agreement does not prevent a Consumer Forum from hearing a complaint. India Law Library Docid # 2402574
(598) DR. MAHTAB SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. RAMPRASTHA PROMOTERS DEVELOPERS (PVT) LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Delay in Possession — Opposite parties failed to hand over possession of the flat within the stipulated period despite receiving substantial payment from the complainants. The admitted delay was over nine years. The Commission held that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession. India Law Library Docid # 2402575
(599) SHIV KUMAR MISHRA Vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Condonation of Delay — delay of 37 days in filing the revision petition was condoned on the basis of reasons stated in the application. India Law Library Docid # 2416768
(600) DR. JOY'S HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND ANOTHER Vs. SABYMOL C.M. ALIAS SABYMOL NAZEER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition Jurisdiction — The National Commission's revisional jurisdiction is extremely limited and should only be exercised when a State Commission has exceeded its legal powers, failed to exercise its powers, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2402573