(961) M/S. HOTEL LEELAVENURE LTD, MUMBAI Vs. NEW INDIAASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-07-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 (a) (i) — Insurance claim — Deficiency in service — Hotel claimed losses from flash floods under two insurance policies. Insurer repudiated the claim. Complainant alleged suppression of final survey report and inadequate compensation. Insurer denied coverage for Leela Galleria as it was outside the "insured premises" and separately insured with another company. Held, claim disallowed as contents of Leela Galleria were not covered under the policies and India Law Library Docid # 1882317
(962) SMT. DIMPY KHANNA AND OTHERS Vs. DR. A. S. SOIN AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-07-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Medical Negligence — Liver Transplant — Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) — Recurrence of HCC after liver transplant is a known possibility and not necessarily indicative of medical negligence — Failure to prevent recurrence of cancer does not constitute medical negligence if there is no proven effective pre-emptive treatment. India Law Library Docid # 1882222
(963) SURESH PRASAD GUPTA Vs. M.D TATA MOTORS AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-07-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service — Manufacturing defect — Damages for loss — Complainant purchased a vehicle faulty from the start leading to repeated repairs and the eventual denial of warranty claim by the manufacturer on suspect grounds — District Forum awarded compensation, State Commission set aside the order — Revision Petition allowed, State Commission's order was erroneous due to overlooking crucial documents and the manufacturer's failure to substantiate their claim India Law Library Docid # 1882241
(964) CHANDA RAJESH AGARWAL Vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-07-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 21(a)(i) — Consumer Complaint — Refund and ancillary reliefs — Complainant booked a residential flat, paid a substantial amount, but possession was delayed by the Opposite Party who subsequently attempted to unilaterally change the terms, flat location, and increased the cost. The complainant sought refund due to the delay and changes. Opposite Party argued the complainant was an investor, sought termination, and justified deductions. The Commission found t India Law Library Docid # 1882312
(965) M/S. GLOBAL HOSPITAL Vs. P. MANJULA AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-07-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — First Appeals — Dismissal of Complaint against OP-2 (Doctor) — Enhancement of Compensation — Vicarious Liability — Hospital liable for negligence of doctor — No privity of contract with doctor — Court finds no error in State Commission's finding of negligence and fixing liability on hospital — Endorses quantum of compensation awarded by State Commission — Modifies order to include interest and enhanced costs. India Law Library Docid # 1882322
(966) UTTARAKHAND POWER CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. MUNFAIT ALI KHAN [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-07-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Limited scope — National Commission's power to interfere with State Commission's order is restricted 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 — Both District and State Commissions have provided well-reasoned orders, and no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error warrants intervention at th India Law Library Docid # 1882244
(967) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. JAGJIT AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-07-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Scope Limited — Interference only in cases of jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or illegal exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity — concurrent findings of lower fora on liability not to be lightly interfered with. India Law Library Docid # 1882290
(968) RAHUL JAIN Vs. M/S. EXACT DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-07-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) Definition of 'Consumer' Explanation for 'commercial purpose' Purpose for earning livelihood by self-employment Buying commercial space to expand business and generate profit on a larger scale, not exclusively for self-employment, means the buyer is not a consumer. India Law Library Docid # 1882230
(969) PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-07-2023 Insurance — Life Insurance Policy — Repudiation of Claim — Non-disclosure of Material Facts — Insurer justified in repudiating claim when deceased life insured provided incorrect information regarding income and occupation in the proposal form, violating the principle of utmost good faith (uberrima fides). India Law Library Docid # 1882297
(970) SMT. MAMTA NEGI W/O LATE DINKAR NEGI AND OTHERS Vs. ADITYA BIRLA CAPITAL SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ONE INDIABULLS CENTRE AND OTHERS [UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 12, 18 Repudiation of Insurance Claim Deficiency in Service Life Insurance Suppression of Material Facts Admissibility of Medical Opinion Nexus between pre-existing disease and death. India Law Library Docid # 1882195
(971) MADHUGITA MADHUKAR SUKHATME Vs. M/S. YOGESH AND YOGESH JOSHI AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Maintainability of Complaint Business to Business Transaction Development agreement not a joint venture if lacking elements like joint ownership, sharing of profits/losses, community of control, or intention of parties for joint business venture Complaint by flat owner against developer is maintainable as a consumer complaint. India Law Library Docid # 1882209
(972) ASHISH VOHRA Vs. M/S. RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Deficiency in Service Failure to provide possession of unit and basic amenities Developer's obligation to provide possession within agreed period Delay in possession beyond reasonable time Home buyer's right to refund with interest Developer's plea of force majeure and default in payment by other buyers not accepted as justification for prolonged delay and lack of basic amenities. India Law Library Docid # 1882364
(973) M/S. AJAY T.V. CENTRE TIBRI ROAD Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision petition against State Commission order setting aside District Forum order — Insurance policy for shop and godowns — Fire in godown area — Insurance claim repudiated — District Forum allowed claim, State Commission set aside — Petitioner's appeal dismissed. India Law Library Docid # 1882183
(974) DYNAMETIC OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. NEW INDIAASSURANCE CO. LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service — Insurance claim repudiation — Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy — Ship sinking due to cyclone — Policy terms and conditions — Insurable interest — Breach of warranties. India Law Library Docid # 1882203
(975) GEETIKA MALLAN AND ANOTHER Vs. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Deficiency in service — Delay in possession and increase in super area — Complainant booked a flat, possession delayed beyond the agreed period, and super area increased arbitrarily — Opposite party argued delay was due to force majeure and increase in super area was as per agreement terms — Commission found delay not justified by force majeure and ordered compensation, but upheld the increase in super area as per agreement. India Law Library Docid # 1882205
(976) RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21 Revision Petition Jurisdiction Highlighting the dismissal of an appeal by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and upholding the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. India Law Library Docid # 1882232
(977) MURUGESEN Vs. BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(a)(i) — Deficiency in service — Insurance claim — Natural calamity — Loss due to cyclone not covered by insurance policy — Complaint for compensation dismissed. India Law Library Docid # 1882292
(978) M/S. MOTIA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. Vs. PUNJAB [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 19 Appeal against order of State Commission Grounds for appeal Pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction Complaint filed by one joint applicant Purchase for investment purposes Default in payment of installments Delay in possession Absence of Completion Certificate State Commission considered and addressed contentions with sound reasoning and case law. India Law Library Docid # 1882291
(979) VIVEK GARG AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA ESTATEDEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 12(1)(a) & 2(1)(d) Consumer Complaint Maintainability A buyer of a flat from a joint venture between a private developer and a statutory authority can file a complaint against both entities. India Law Library Docid # 1882213
(980) PRIYANKA TANDON AND ANOTHER Vs. BHATIA GLOBAL HOSPITAL & ENDOSURGERY INSTITUTE & OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) & 21(b) — Deficiency in Service, Medical Negligence, Unfair Trade Practices — ICSI Procedure — Paternity Dispute — Incorrect Blood Group — DNA Test Confirms Non-Paternity — OPs collectively liable for negligence and unfair trade practices — Hospital and Directors found responsible for misleading advertisement and unethical practices attributed to failure to follow standard guidelines. India Law Library Docid # 1882143