ive
THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023
THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023
THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(961) GULSHAN MEDICARE Vs. MANOJ CHACKO [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2022
This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the order dated 30/11/2016 in C.C. No. 20/2014 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (District Commission for short). As per the order, the appellant/ first opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. One lakh within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which the complainant is entitled for 18% interest from the due date till realisation of
India Law Library Docid # 1873359

(962) DR. PIYUSH N. SHASTRI (M.D.) Vs. CHIMANBHAI KARSANBHAI PARMAR [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2022
The present Appeal is a challenge to an impugned order dated 30.08.2011 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Consumer Complaint No. 102/2000 was allowed and the Appellant/Opposite Party was ordered to pay Rs. 3 lakh with 6% interest from the date of complaint till realisation.
India Law Library Docid # 1850335

(963) SHEULI DAS Vs. DR. KANCHAN BHATTACHARYA AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2022
Brief facts are that on 14/01/2004, the Complainants husband - Mr. Prabir Kumar Das met with road accident at about 11.15 p.m. On 15/01/2004 he was taken to the Calcutta Medical Research Institute (CMRI)- the OP-2 hospital in an unconscious state with hip injury, facial injuries. He was immediately admitted to ICCU and he remained there for 12 weeks. The Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr. Kanchan Bhattacharyya (OP-1), attached to the hospital was called for the treatment. The patient was gradually improvin
India Law Library Docid # 1850364

(964) ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Vs. LT. J.S. BEDI [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2022
Both the Appeals have been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Opposite Parties (hospital and doctors) challenging the Order dated 02.11.2007 passed in C.C. No. 131/2003 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) whereby the complaint was allowed and the lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded on the ground of deficiency.
India Law Library Docid # 1850367

(965) AMIT SINGH BHATI Vs. DR. MANISH GOYAL [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2022
The instant I.A. was filed by the Opposite Party raising the question of maintainability on the ground of limitation (delay in filling the instant Complaint) and the pecuniary jurisdiction. Heard the learned Counsel for both the sides. On the point of Limitation: There was delay of 954 days in filing the Consumer Complaint before this Commission. The Complainant filed an I.A. No. 4756/2017 for condonation of delay under section 24A of the CP Act, 1986.
India Law Library Docid # 1850368

(966) OM PARKASH SIKKA AND ANOTHER Vs. IVY HOSPITAL AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2022
The present Complaint has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) by (1) Sh. Om Prakash Sikka & (2) Smt. Madhu Sikka against IVY Hospital, Sector-70, Mohali, Punjab & its 4 Doctors, seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- for act of medical negligence on the part of Opposite Parties, which resulted in the death of the Complainants son, Rajat Sikka (hereinafter referred to as the deceased or patient).
India Law Library Docid # 1850369

(967) DR. J.C.MUDGAL Vs. DR. A.K.SINGH AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2022
The relevant facts are that, on 07.02.2005 the Complainant, Dr. J.C. Mudgal (hereinafter referred to as the patient), about 54 years of age, a medical doctor consulted Dr. A. K. Singh, the OP-1 for his complaints of back pain. On the next visit on 23.03.2005, the OP-1 advised surgical intervention by Spinal decompression and fusion with screws and rods.
India Law Library Docid # 1850370

(968) ASHIT BARAN CHAKRABORTY Vs. KASTURBA GANDHI HOSPITAL [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2022
On 30.04.2004 at about 6 AM, the Complainants daughter Ms. Antra (for short the patient) while going to school by an Auto-Rickshaw met with an accident. Immediately she was rushed to emergency at Kasturba Gandhi Hospital (in short, OP-1). Dr. Subimal Gupta (in short, OP-4) examined her and shifted to ICU and IV saline was started. The patient vomited twice. It was alleged that the Complainant asked about the seriousness of head injury and if necessary, he wanted to take his daughter to some othe
India Law Library Docid # 1850379

(969) MANJU RAI Vs. SANJAY GANDHI POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2022
This Consumer Complaint has been filed by Ms. Manju Rai the Complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act,1986) for alleged death her husband due to medical negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service against Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow and Others (for short SGPGI Opposite Party).
India Law Library Docid # 1850380

(970) CHAIRMAN, JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S S.S. MILLS AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-11-2022
The present Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Tamil Nadu, Chennai (hereinafter to be referred to as State Commission), whereby the Complaint filed by M/s. S.S. Mills, (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) was allowed and the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party Bank) was directed to pay a sum of ?8,34,000/- to the Complainant on the basis of the letter of credit dated 2
India Law Library Docid # 1850378

(971) M/S. MEHNDIRATTA FOODS PVT. LTD. Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER [DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-11-2022
The present Consumer Complaint has been filed by the M/s Mehndiratta Foods Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) under Section 21(a) read with Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No.1/ Insurance Company/ Insurer) and Nainital Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No.2/ Bank) with main prayer to pay compensation, as claimed,
India Law Library Docid # 1856017

(972) SATYAVRAT RAMESH PENDHARKAR AND ANOTHER Vs. IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-11-2022
Heard Mr. Nitin Bharadwaj, Advocate, for the complainants, Mr. Sameer Chaudhary, Advocate, for the opposite party. Satyavrat Ramesh Pendharkar and Mrs. Aishwarya Satyavrat Pendharkar (the complainants) have filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) refund Rs.18837591/- deposited by them, with interest @20% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, (ii) pay compensation of Rs.10/- lacs, for mental agony and harassment, (iii) pay Rs.2/- lacs, as co
India Law Library Docid # 1850359

(973) MEENA DEVI Vs. LIC OF INDIA [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-11-2022
The complainant has challenged the impugned order in the present appeal on several counts. It is submitted that the order of the State Commission is fraught with illegality. It is submitted that as per Article 44-A of Limitation Act, 1963, a suit can be filed on a policy of insurance when the same is payable on the death of insured either within 3 years from the date of death of insured or where the claim under the policy is filed with the Insurance Company within 3 years from the date of such d
India Law Library Docid # 1850376

(974) UNIT TRUST OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. KAMALESH CHHABRA [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-11-2022
The present Revision Petition has been filed by Unit Trust of India, Navi Mumbai and 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners), under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Order dated 20.01.2015, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 97 of 2014 in First Appeal No. 900 of 2012. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission, while upholding the Order dated 31.0
India Law Library Docid # 1850377

(975) GIRIJA VISWANATHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. PRAGYA COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-11-2022
Mrs. Girija Viswanathan has filed CC/1558/2018 for directing Pragya Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (the opposite party) to refund the principal amount of Rs.3421333/-, pay Rs.14678667/- as compensation for loss caused by the society to the complainants or in alternative, to allot a flat of B Category of the same price originally paid by the complainant as per provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, to pay pendent-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum, to pay Rs.860000/- f
India Law Library Docid # 1850374

(976) IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. M/S OPG ENERGY (P) LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-11-2022
The present First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) has been filed by the Appellant Insurance Company/Opposite Party in Complaint (hereinafter to be referred to as the Insurance Company) questioning the legality of the Order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Chennai (hereinafter to be referred to as the State Commission) in Consumer Complaint No. 20 of 2011. By the Impugned Order, while partl
India Law Library Docid # 1850375

(977) MR. PRITAM PAL Vs. JOVE & KLAR ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-11-2022
The Opposite Party no. 1 kept the car in question in its workshop for ten days, however, the problem could not be cured even after repairs. Thereafter, vide email dated 27.04.2015, the Complainants again intimated the said problem to the Opposite Party no. 1 and sent the car to the workshop of Opposite party No.1. After inspection, the technician of Opposite Party No.1 again noted that "whistling noise comes from brake while applying brakes" and kept the car at workshop for repairs.
India Law Library Docid # 1873336

(978) MEERA SACHDEVA Vs. M/S JASMINE BUILDMART PVT. LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-11-2022
Ms. Meera Sachdeva (the complainant) has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) complete the construction of the project Provence Estate as per specification, obtain completion certificate, handover possession and execute conveyance deed in her favour within six months, or alternatively, hand over the task of the completing project to a renowned Architect/Civil Contractor and the opposite party be directed to handover, relevant drawings/documents and necessary fund to him
India Law Library Docid # 1850356

(979) NIKITA DHINGRA AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. JASMINE BUILDMART PVT. LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-11-2022
Ms. Nikita Dhingra & Vinod Kumar Dhingra(the complainants) have filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) complete the construction of the project Provence Estate as per specification, obtain completion certificate, handover possession and execute conveyance deed in her favour within six months, or alternatively, hand over the task of the completing project to a renowned Architect/Civil Contractor and the opposite party be directed to handover, relevant drawings/documents an
India Law Library Docid # 1850357

(980) RAJIYA BEGUM Vs. DR. AMITABH SINGHAL [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-11-2022
The instant Revision Petition was filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 20.08.2014 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in Appeal No. 1411/2006 whereby the Appeal filed by the Complainant was dismissed.
India Law Library Docid # 1850360