(921) NARAYAN LAL GUJAR Vs. CIGNA TTK HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal — Grounds for Appeal — Insufficient medical evidence to support claim — Rejection of health insurance claim by IR — Complainant alleged heart attack, IR repudiated claim citing lack of evidence of heart muscle damage and mismatched ECGs — State Commission dismissed complaint, finding no defect in rejection — Appellant raised issues of overlooked expert opinion, discrepancies in IR's reply, and failure to consider critical "Golden Hour" treatmen India Law Library Docid # 2401696
(922) PROVAT KUMAR PAL Vs. DR. NILAABHA BHADURI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Hasty Surgery — Evidence indicated that the patient was subjected to surgery without proper pre-operative evaluation and that the decision for surgery was hasty, without trying conservative treatment first. Expert opinions suggested that the patient's condition did not warrant urgent hysterectomy. India Law Library Docid # 2401697
(923) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. RAMA MISHRA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against State Commission Order — Delay in filing — Condonation of delay — Delay of 85 days in filing the appeal was condoned for reasons stated in IA/15075/2019. India Law Library Docid # 2401698
(924) BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. SUMAN DEVI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against order of State Commission — Delay condonation — Condonation of delay in filing appeal for valid reasons. India Law Library Docid # 2401699
(925) CONSUMERS WALFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. VASUNDHARA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeals — Order of State Commission — Dismissal of First Appeal — Complainant booked a flat, made initial payment, but builder delayed construction and eventually sold the flat to another. State Commission ordered refund of booking amount with interest. Appellants sought higher compensation. The appellate commission found no reason to interfere with the State Commission's order. India Law Library Docid # 2401700
(926) M/S. HARISH PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-01-2024 Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5 Applicant seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal must demonstrate a "sufficient cause" for the delay. The concept of "sufficient cause" requires that the party acted with reasonable diligence and without negligence or want of bona fide. The court exercises its discretion judiciously after sufficient cause is shown. India Law Library Docid # 2401688
(927) A. ILYAS AHMED Vs. THE EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-01-2024 Insurance Law Export Credit Guarantee Policy Claim for losses due to non-payment by foreign buyer Interpretation of "consignment basis" versus "firm purchase basis" Assessment of delay in filing reports and its impact on claim admissibility. India Law Library Docid # 2401689
(928) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. BELABEN HARISH KUMAR GANDHI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-01-2024 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 3; Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Driving Without Valid License — Insurance Claim — Breach of Policy Conditions — Held, for an insurer to avoid liability on the ground of the driver lacking a valid license, the insurer must prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in ensuring the vehicle was driven by a duly licensed driver. Mere absence or invalidity of the license is not sufficient. The burden of pr India Law Library Docid # 2401690
(929) JAHIR KHAN Vs. ASHOK LEYLAND AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Delay in filing — Condonation granted for delay in filing the Revision Petition based on stated reasons. India Law Library Docid # 2401691
(930) SATBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LIMITED AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Maintainability of Complaint Plot of land for housing construction Buy-back facility Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to deal with complaints of deficiency of service in relation to immovable properties. India Law Library Docid # 2401686
(931) SANDEEP NATHURAM NALAVADE Vs. SHIVASAHYADRI EMU FARM AND HATCHRIES AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-01-2024 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Sufficient Cause — Court should lean favorably towards defaulting petitioners and not adopt a pedantic approach, but should decide cases on merits rather than thwarting the cause on the ground of limitation — However, the law of limitation must be respected and complied with, and judicial discretion for condonation of delay must be exercised judiciously based on sufficient cause and factual basis provided by the petitioner. India Law Library Docid # 2401687
(932) PREM KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. M/S. BESTECH INDIA PVT. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 12, 21, 22—Deficiency in service—Failure to offer possession of flat within stipulated time—Complainant sought refund of amount paid—Developer acknowledged booking and issued allotment letter—Agreement stipulated possession within 36 months + 6 months grace period—Complainant paid part of the sale consideration—Delay in project completion due to a gas pipeline issue requiring revised plans and permissions—Occupancy Certificate obtained late—Complai India Law Library Docid # 2401684
(933) DR. H.B. M. PANTH Vs. ASKARI HUSSAIN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Deficiency in Service Medical Negligence Prima facie case of negligence established by complainants through pre-operative treatments and outcome of surgery. Onus shifts to medical establishment to prove no negligence. Circumstances suggest operational decisions were made in haste, ignoring ultrasound reports, leading to patient's condition. India Law Library Docid # 2401685
(934) DR. H.B. M. PANTH Vs. ASKARI HUSSAIN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(d), 12 — Medical Negligence — Deficiency in Service — Elements of medical negligence (4 Ds) — Duty, Dereliction, Direct Causation, Damages — Burden of proof — Doctor-patient relationship — Failure to prove doctor-patient relationship and duty of care — Lack of essential medical records (anaesthesia record, OT register, delivery register, nursing notes) — Unsubstantiated allegations — Hearsay evidence — Presumption and conjecture against doctors — Med India Law Library Docid # 2401609
(935) VIRENDRA AGRAWAL AND OTHERS Vs. NEEPA REAL ESTATES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-01-2024 RERA, Property Law Flat booking agreement Super built-up area vs. Carpet area Burden of proof Developer failed to provide initial allotment letter Ledger account showed super built-up area Demand for increased carpet area unjustified and quashed Refund of amount paid under protest with interest. India Law Library Docid # 2401608
(936) BHAJAN BHAGWANT SINGH Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Insurance Policy — Claim Denial — Scope of interference with lower Fora's findings. India Law Library Docid # 2401607
(937) A.C. DHARMADEVI Vs. INDIAN BANK AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d)(ii) — Consumer — Commercial Purpose — Exclusion of — Amendment — Loan for running a business — Held not for earning livelihood by self-employment — Hence, excluded from definition of consumer. India Law Library Docid # 2401610
(938) M/S. PREMIUM ACRES INFRATECH PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. RAVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 19 Appeal against State Commission order directing possession and compensation Where buyer paid full amount but was denied possession due to alleged outstanding dues claimed by builder, and re-possessed by builder despite buyer performing house warming ceremony and offering to pay remaining dues as per State Commission's order, this constitutes deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2401611
(939) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. KEHAR SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Insurance Company challenging order allowing consumer claim — Factual background involves vehicle theft, delayed police FIR, repudiation of claim by insurer due to delayed intimation and classification as criminal breach of trust, and subsequent court-directed FIR leading to untraced report — District Forum and State Commission partly allowed the claim. India Law Library Docid # 2401605
(940) MUKESH G. DHAKAN Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2024 Insurance Law — Jeweller's Block Insurance Policy — Claim repudiation — Fire incident causing alleged loss of gold — Complainant failed to establish actual loss — Insurance Company repudiated claim based on surveyor's report citing lack of documentary evidence for stock, inconsistent statements, and improbable theories of gold melting and washing away — State Commission dismissed complaint, holding that complex facts required civil court intervention — Appeal dismissed as complainant could not s India Law Library Docid # 2401615