(601) KARAMVEER KAUR Vs. GIAN CHAND RANGWALA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND OTHERS[PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 17 — Complaint against Opposite Parties for medical negligence and deficiency in service — Complainant alleged that due to inaccurate reading of a Level 2 Ultrasound Scan, her child was born with Hydranencephaly — OPs denied allegations, stating all scans were normal and the condition was diagnosed post-birth — Complaint dismissed on merits as complainant failed to prove negligence. India Law Library Docid # 2403037
(602) SUNIL KUMAR MADAN (SINCE DECEASED) Vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS[CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 41 — Appeal against District Commission order — Limitation period — Forty-five days from date of order — State Commission may entertain appeal after expiry if sufficient cause shown — Appellants sought condonation of 243 days delay. India Law Library Docid # 2403033
(603) KANWALPREET KAUR Vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD AND OTHERS[CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-03-2024 Insurance Law — Group Loan Secure Policy — Death of Life Assured — Accidental vs. Suicide — Determination of cause of death based on police investigation reports and post-mortem examination — Police reports concluding accidental death were accepted by higher authorities and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, thus carrying weight. India Law Library Docid # 2403034
(604) SALLIMUDDIN M. SHAIKH Vs. M/S.K.K. CONSTRUCTION AND OTHERS[MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 17 — Consumer Complaint — Jurisdiction — Flat purchased for residential purpose — Complainant paid part of the consideration — Complainant qualifies as a 'consumer'. India Law Library Docid # 2403036
(605) ABHINITH KISHORE Vs. BHARATI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-03-2024 Insurance — Health Insurance — Claim Repudiation — Grounds — Congenital External and Cosmetic Surgery — Infantile Esotropia — Medical Opinion — Deficiency in Service — Consumer Protection — Appeal allowed. India Law Library Docid # 2403038
(606) ARIHANT CLOTHINGS (P) LIMITED Vs. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15 — Appeal against District Commission order — Interpretation of contract terms — 'Ex-BLR' clause — Dispute arose over whether the seller (complainant) retained insurable interest in goods damaged during transit. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, holding the seller lost insurable interest due to the 'Ex-BLR' term. The appellate commission reviewed the case, examining the contract terms, correspondence, and surveyor reports to determine the passi India Law Library Docid # 2403035
(607) FORCE MOTORS LIMITED Vs. RAVINDRAN AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of revisional jurisdiction — Limited to jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction or illegal/material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction — Court should not ordinarily interfere with discretion exercised by lower courts. India Law Library Docid # 2402817
(608) 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
(609) 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
(610) 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
(611) 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
(612) 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
(613) 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
(614) 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
(615) 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
(616) 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
(617) 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
(618) 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
(619) 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
(620) 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