(61) SHEKHWATI JANANA HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE AND ANOTHER Vs. ASHOK KUMAR BHATI AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Breach of Duty — Haemorrhagic Shock in Pregnancy — Determination of medical negligence in the treatment of a critically ill pregnant patient (8 months gestation, Hb 3, severe bleeding, haemorrhagic shock) admitted to Petitioner No. 1 hospital — Allegations against treating doctors and hospital include: administering wrong blood group (based on alleged nurse statement); improper handling/storage/transfusion of blood (allegedl India Law Library Docid # 2424512
(62) INDIAN BANK AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. T. SREEKALA PUTHUPURACKAL HOUSE[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Banking Services — Home Loan Insurance (Mortgage Redemption Assurance) — IB Griha Jeevan Policy — Determination of deficiency in service against the Appellant Bank concerning the non-availability of life insurance coverage under the 'IB Griha Jeevan Policy' for a home loan availed by the Respondent/Complainant's late husband — Dispute centered on whether the loan sanctioned on 22.12.2008 fell under the Bank's 'Special Home Loan Scheme' (lau India Law Library Docid # 2424513
(63) BABU SINGH SOLANKI Vs. MAX SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Complex Co-morbidities — Deferred Surgery — Cardiac Arrest — Determination of medical negligence in the treatment of a patient with a complex history (Pulmonary Blastoma, Synovial Carcinoma, post-chemo/radiotherapy) admitted for kidney stone removal — Assessment includes: adequacy of pre-operative evaluation identifying severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction (LVEF 25-30%); appropriateness of deferring planned surgery due to hig India Law Library Docid # 2424514
(64) SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, HARDOI DIVISION, HARDOI, UP. AND ANOTHER Vs. SHASHI KANT BAJPAI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Procedure — Res Judicata — Procedural Bar — Maintainability of Fresh Complaint after Dismissal for Default — Whether a fresh consumer complaint is maintainable on the same cause of action after a previous complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution and an application for its restoration was also dismissed, considering the principle that dismissal in default does not constitute a decision on merits barring a subsequent suit/complaint. India Law Library Docid # 2424515
(65) JAI PRAKASH YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. RAVI GAS AGENCY AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Negligence — LPG Supply — Fire Accident — Causation — Determination of liability of Gas Agency and Oil Marketing Company for a fire accident allegedly caused by leakage from a supplied LPG cylinder, resulting in burn injuries to Complainant No. 3 and property damage — Assessment of conflicting claims regarding the cause: alleged defective cylinder versus consumer's alleged use of unauthorized/non-standard regulator and pipe — Consideration India Law Library Docid # 2424516
(66) VINOD KALRA Vs. AMAZON RETAIL INDIA PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 47(2) & 58(2) — Jurisdiction of State/National Commission — Constitution of Benches — Single Member Bench Validity — Determination of whether an order passed by a single Member (President) of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is valid under Section 47(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which provides for constitution of Benches by the President "with one or more members" — Petitioner contended this violates the Act, arguing a minimum t India Law Library Docid # 2424518
(67) M/S. AUTOPACE NETWORK (P) LTD. Vs. KARAMJIT SINGH RUDRA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in Service — Sale of Vehicle — Delayed Handover of Ownership Documents: Determination of whether an authorized car dealer (Petitioner) committed deficiency in service by withholding the delivery of vehicle ownership documents for a period (approx. 9 days) after the vehicle itself was delivered and full payment was received from the consumer (Respondent No. 1), allegedly due to the consumer's delay in providing specific proof (salary sl India Law Library Docid # 2424519
(68) RAJ KUMAR Vs. SARVODYA HOSPITAL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Severe Crush Injury — Limb Salvage vs. Amputation — Post-Operative Management — Discharge Status — Determination of medical negligence against Respondent hospital (OP-1) and doctors (OP-2, OP-3) in managing a severe limb crush injury (comminuted fracture, vascular deficit, 90% detachment) sustained in an RTA — Assessment of whether the decision to attempt limb salvage surgery (at relatives' alleged insistence despite amputat India Law Library Docid # 2424520
(69) BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Insurance Law — Motor Vehicle Insurance — Repudiation of Claim (Fire Damage) — Breach of Policy Conditions — Unauthorized Modifications — Justification — Determination of whether the insurer (Petitioner/OP-1) was justified in repudiating the claim for fire damage to the insured vehicle based on the ground that the fire was caused by unauthorized electrical modifications (non-genuine rear camera, non-OE roof light, tampering with wiring harness/adding wire bridges) India Law Library Docid # 2424521
(70) JOHNSON CONTROLS-HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING INDIA LTD. Vs. SMT. SALY SUNNY AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Agency Law — Contract Act, 1872 — Vicarious Liability of Principal (Manufacturer) for Acts of Dealer —Agent — Proof of Agency — Determination of whether the manufacturer (Petitioners/OP-2 & 3) can be held vicariously liable for the failure of a local supplier/installer (OP-1) to fulfil a contract (supply and installation of AC units) entered into with the consumer (Complainant), despite the consumer having paid substantial amounts to OP-1 — Assessment based on whe India Law Library Docid # 2424522
(71) SH. RAKESH KUMAR JHA Vs. HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(f) & 2(1)(g) — Defect in Goods — Deficiency in Service — Sale of Motorcycle — Manufacturing Defect vs. Repairable Defects — Determination of whether multiple issues reported by the Complainant soon after purchasing a new motorcycle (gear problems, excessive smoke, engine heating, noisy self-starter/shockers, defective wiring) constituted inherent manufacturing defects warranting replacement, or were merely repairable defects — Consideration of the OPs India Law Library Docid # 2424523
(72) DR. SOUMITRA KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI DEBASHIS GOSWAMI AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Caesarean Section (LUCS) — Amniotic Fluid Embolism (AFE) — Anaesthesia Complications — Determination of medical negligence against treating Obstetrician/Gynaecologist (OP-1) and Hospital (OP-2) following maternal death post-Caesarean section, where the stated cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to Amniotic Fluid Embolism (AFE) — Assessment of whether the standard of care was breached during the surgery (alleged India Law Library Docid # 2424524
(73) GETWELL HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. SATYAWAN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Diagnosis and Treatment — Intestinal Damage — Tuberculosis (TB) — Determination of medical negligence against Petitioner Hospital (OP-1) and Doctor (OP-2) where the Complainant alleged that improper treatment/medication for fever and abdominal pain during a short admission (3-7 days) led to intestinal damage requiring surgery at another hospital (SDMH) — Assessment of whether OP-1/OP-2 failed to diagnose a pre-existing India Law Library Docid # 2424525
(74) ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (R.P.L.I.) AND ANOTHER Vs. VITHAL KISAN KHAMKAR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-02-2025 Insurance Law (Rural Postal Life Insurance - RPLI) — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Policy Lapse (Rule 39(1)) vs. Acceptance of Late Premium — Estoppel/Waiver — Determination of validity of Rural Postal Life Insurance policy claim where premiums were paid and accepted significantly beyond the due date and grace period, allegedly causing the policy to lapse under applicable rules (Rule 39(1)) due to non-payment within six months of the due date — Whether the Postal Department (Petitioners) is e India Law Library Docid # 2424526
(75) ABHIJIT SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-02-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Insurance Law — Annuity Policy — Interpretation — Option Selection (Lifetime Income vs. Capital Refund) — Ambiguity — Contra Proferentem — Determination of the operative annuity option (Option 1.1 - Lifetime Income only vs. Option 1.2 - Lifetime Income with Capital Refund) where the proposal form, signed by the deceased policyholder, indicated Option 1.1 was ticked, but also contained nominations for beneficiaries (a feature associated with Option 1.2 but arguabl India Law Library Docid # 2424527
(76) M/S. HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. THROUGH ITS COMPANY SECRETARY Vs. PREM LATA BANSAL AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019— A complaint may be considered within the limitation period if the State Commission finds a continuous cause of action — A complainant's petition is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, even if the original complaint was barred by limitation, if the State Commission finds a continuous cause of action. India Law Library Docid # 2422864
(77) DIRECTOR STATE INSURANCE AND PROVIDENT FUND DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER Vs. MURARI LAL AGARWAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — NCDRC may only interfere with the State Commission's order in cases of jurisdictional errors, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or material irregularity — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) may only interfere with the State Commission's order if it exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, fails to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or acts with material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2422865
(78) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER AND OTHERS Vs. IQBAL AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-01-2025 Insurance Act, 1938 — Section 64 UM — IRDA Regulations — An insurance company cannot repudiate a claim for a loss excluded in the policy if the policy terms and conditions were not provided to the insured — The State Commission's order holding the insurance company liable for the loss of a machine due to explosion, despite the policy excluding damage caused by own explosion, is affirmed, as the policy terms and conditions were not provided to the insured, and the claim was not settled within thr India Law Library Docid # 2422866
(79) M/S. SAMTA MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY Vs. NARENDER AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower fora without jurisdictional errors or material irregularities — Revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) is limited to cases with jurisdictional errors, material irregularities, or miscarriages of justice, and cannot be used to upset concurrent findings of fact by lower fora. India Law Library Docid # 2422863
(80) ASHOK AGARWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. ARUN KUMAR PAREEK AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 17(1)(b), 21(b) — A second revision petition against a state commission's order in revision is not maintainable before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — Second revision petitions against state commission orders in revision are not maintainable. India Law Library Docid # 2422862