(61) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. K.S BHATTI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-08-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 12, 2(1)(d), 2(1)(r) Deficiency in Service Unfair Trade Practice Railways Act, 1989 Section 100 Railways' Liability for Luggage Negligence Theft Territorial Jurisdiction Non-joinder of Parties Respondent booked tickets and boarded train at Chandigarh, establishing territorial jurisdiction for complaint Court found no deficiency in service by railways regarding safety of personal luggage carried by passengers, without being booked, unless proven India Law Library Docid # 2432989
(62) ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. KANWALPREET KAUR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-08-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Revision Petition — Maintainability — Revision petitions filed before a key judgment on the maintainability of such petitions for consumer complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Parties agreed to treat RPs as Second Appeals, dispensing with formal redesignation, and proceed on merits if substantial question of law is involved. India Law Library Docid # 2432990
(63) RANJANA GOEL AND OTHER Vs. CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-08-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 11(2)(a) & (c) Territorial Jurisdiction Complaint against Railways for lost luggage Cause of action for a consumer complaint against Railways for loss of luggage on a moving train arises where the railway station from which the journey commenced, the destination that was not reached, or the place where the deficiency in service occurred. Mere existence of a India Law Library Docid # 2432832
(64) HERITAGE HOSPITAL LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. PARVATI DEVI AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-08-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Proof — For proving medical negligence, it must be shown that the doctor did not act in accordance with the ordinary skill and care expected of a reasonably competent medical professional, and that this failure led to the injury or death — Allegations of negligence against a hospital and doctor, where the hospital initially failed to contest the case before the State Commission — Highlighting that while allegations themselves are n India Law Library Docid # 2432991
(65) SMT. SONIA SACHDEVA Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-08-2025 Insurance Act, 1938 Section 45 Repudiation of claim False statements in proposal form Insured failed to disclose previous medical history of heavy smoking, diabetes, and alcoholic liver disease Medical examination at policy issuance did not reveal these conditions Evidence of prior treatment for alcoholism, hypertension, and suspected liver issues established Non-disclosure of material facts justifying repudiation. India Law Library Docid # 2432833
(66) BABULAL KUBERCHAND GANDHI Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-08-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — Electricity supply — Deficiency in service — Negligence — Damage due to faulty service lines before the meter — Whether the consumer is entitled to claim under the Consumer Protection Act — Held that consumer status arises from the point of connection onwards, as defined by the electricity meter and charges paid — Accidents or damages occurring before the meter, on distribution or transmission lines, do not India Law Library Docid # 2432834
(67) SARITA DEVI KAUSHIK Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-08-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sections 39 and 43 Registration of Motor Vehicles Driving vehicle without valid registration or valid expired temporary registration is a fundamental breach of insurance policy conditions and statutory provisions, justifying repudiation of insurance claim India Law Library Docid # 2432835
(68) NIRMALA KUMARI (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-08-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 12, 17, 58(1)(b) — Deficiency in Service — ATM Transaction Dispute — Complainant alleged partial withdrawal from ATM, receiving Rs. 11,000 instead of Rs. 20,000. — District Forum allowed complaint based on missing transaction serial numbers and lack of CCTV footage. — State Commission set aside the District Forum's order relying on ATM and JP log sheets showing successful withdrawal. — National Commission upheld the State India Law Library Docid # 2432836
(69) CHHOTI DEVI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS Vs. BHARTI AXA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-08-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against State Commission order — Dismissal of complaint by State Commission — Challenge on grounds of non-consideration of facts, error in holding concealment of material fact, failure to appreciate proposal form filled by agent, repudiation on faulty premise, error of law regarding concealment, and contradicting views in similar cases — India Law Library Docid # 2432837
(70) CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK) Vs. JAI KUMAR MITTAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Deficiency in service — Fixed Deposits — Non-renewal — Bank failed to provide justification for the interest rate applied on matured and lapsed Fixed Deposits, leading to a finding of deficient service by the Commission, despite challenges to the State Commission's order. India Law Library Docid # 2428108
(71) MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. Vs. PIYUSH BANGAD AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — National Commission can interfere when lower forums err in law or facts, or exercise jurisdiction arbitrarily — State Commission’s order was bereft of detailed reasons or analysis, merely reproducing facts and dismissing appeals without discussing evidence or contentions of opposite parties — This necessitates remand for fresh disposal. India Law Library Docid # 2428109
(72) KAMLESH YADAV Vs. NATIONAL HEART INSTITUTE AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(a)(i) — Medical Negligence — Deficiency in Service — Compensation — Preliminary issue of maintainability before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) raised by Opposite Parties due to disputed facts and claim for compensation — Held complaint maintainable as it pertains to deficiency in service against providers of medical services. India Law Library Docid # 2428110
(73) M/S. ABT INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. T. CHINTHANAIKUMAR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of Consumer — Commercial Purpose — Defence that transaction was for commercial purposes requires detailed evidence of commercial activities, not just bald allegations of fleet ownership. India Law Library Docid # 2428111
(74) THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. RANJOT SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — First Appeal against State Commission order — Delay condoned — Appeal allowed subject to facts and evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2428101
(75) BHAGWATI PRASAD KANYA MAHAVIDYALAYA Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Failure to provide account details — Bank failed to provide details of a dormant account and made it difficult for the complainant to access their deposited funds, constituting a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. India Law Library Docid # 2428102
(76) SMT. SUMAN D. MANE (DEAD) THROUGH LRS Vs. DIRECTOR, GRANT MEDICAL FOUNDATION AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 13, 21(a)(ii) — Medical Negligence — Deficiency in Service — Standard of Care — Consumer Forum has power to seek expert reports or medical boards for effective disposal of complaint, especially where medical negligence is alleged. India Law Library Docid # 2428103
(77) INDUSIND BANK Vs. RAM PRAKASH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Repossession of vehicle — Bank repossessed a truck due to alleged default in loan repayment. The complainant argued that payments were made on time and sought the loan account statement. The bank did not provide the statement and later sold the truck for a significantly lower price than its market value, despite a small outstanding amount. Both the District Forum and India Law Library Docid # 2428104
(78) M/S PRAGATI INGETS & POWER PVT. LTD. Vs. CHHATTISGARH POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of ‘Consumer’ — Electricity Supply — Company using electricity for manufacturing goods is not necessarily for commercial purpose — Use of electricity for manufacturing is distinct from a sale or profit-generating activity — Plea that corporate nature or use of electricity India Law Library Docid # 2428105
(79) M/S. KENYA AIRWAYS AND OTHERS Vs. SH. RAJIV AGARWAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal — Condonation of Delay — Delay of 141 days in filing appeal condoned as sufficient reasons were shown, preventing miscarriage of justice. India Law Library Docid # 2428106
(80) KUSH PANDEY Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2025 Consumer Protection — Insurance Claims — Fire Incident — Assessment of Loss — Shopkeeper's policy taken for stock worth Rs.10 lakhs. Fire incident occurred, surveyor assessed loss at Rs.2,40,000/- on non-standard basis, citing failure to prove loss, prevention of physical verification and lack of documentary proof. Insurer offered Rs.1,68,000/-, which was declined. State Commission initially allowed the full claim of India Law Library Docid # 2428107