(981) METRO HOSPITAL AND HEART INSTITUTE Vs. DR. OM PRAKASH AGARWAL AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Causation — Foreign Object — Complainant alleged foreign objects left during surgery, causing pain years later. Court examined CT scans and found no convincing evidence of a surgical needle, noting sharp needles would likely cause early symptoms. India Law Library Docid # 1882226
(982) MANAGER, SUMITRA D. S. MOTORS @ SUMITRA D.S. MOTORS PVT. LTD. Vs. RAJIV GUPTA @ RAJIV KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — Commercial Purpose — Vehicle purchased for commercial purposes, like running as a taxi with multiple drivers, does not qualify as a consumer under the Act — Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the vehicle was registered as commercial or was used for profit-making activities rather than personal livelihood. India Law Library Docid # 1873470
(983) MANAGER, SUMITRA D. S. MOTORS @ SUMITRA D.S. MOTORS PVT. LTD. Vs. RAJIV GUPTA @ RAJIV KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 13, 21(b) — Manufacturing Defect — Expert Opinion — Procedure for testing defects — Lower forums erred in concluding manufacturing defect without expert opinion as mandated by Section 13 of the Act and without establishing a link between the mechanic's opinion on engine heating and the alleged defect in suspension. India Law Library Docid # 1877403
(984) DEPARTMENT OF POST AND OTHERS Vs. COLONEL NARENDRA NATH SURI (RETD.) [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-06-2023 Consumer Protection Law — Liability of Post Office — Misappropriation of funds — Post office held liable for misappropriation of funds from recurring deposit account due to actions of its agent opening a fake savings account and withdrawing money based on forged documents and in connivance with officials. India Law Library Docid # 1882221
(985) DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NORTHERN RAILWAY AND OTHERS Vs. BIRENDERA KUMAR PASWAN [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Unfair Trade Practice — Consumer Rights — Railways — Tickets — Penalty imposed for not producing 'original' ticket at journey's end, despite pre-paid reserved tickets being presented and no issues during journey or boarding — Consumer forums finding this to be deficiency in service and unfair trade practice — Reconsideration of penalty amount. India Law Library Docid # 1882224
(986) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. M/S SHARMA AGENCY [PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 41 Appeal against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Insurance claim for theft of stock District Commission partly allowed complainant's claim Appeal filed by Insurance Company Issue of appreciation of Surveyor's report and stock statements Recovery of stolen items not properly considered by District Commission Balance sheet showing admitted claim receivable not considered Matter remanded to District Commission for fresh adjudi India Law Library Docid # 1882370
(987) PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED Vs. SUNITA RAHEJA AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-05-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d)(ii) — "Consumer" — Residential plot purchased for investment purposes — Held not a "consumer" — Plea by developer that plot was purchased for commercial purposes rejected as the complainant sought to build a residential house for self-occupation. India Law Library Docid # 1873311
(988) MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AUTOMOBILES DIVISION AND OTHERS Vs. SHAILESH KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI SHARDA PRASAD SINGH AND OTHERS [HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-05-2023 CONSUMER PROTECTION — WARRANTY PERIOD — VEHICLE REPAIRS — The complainant purchased a vehicle under warranty. The vehicle met with an accident and was repaired. Subsequently, the complainant alleged a manufacturing defect. The court found that the complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect prior to the accident and that the damages were assessed and compensated by the insurance company. The court noted that the subsequent allegations of manufacturing defects were afterthoughts and not India Law Library Docid # 1882095
(989) ANIL KUMAR APPAN & 2 OTHERS Vs. M/S. A R LANDCRAFT LLP & ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-05-2023 Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 — Section 13(1) — Promoter accepting advance payment exceeding 10% without written agreement for sale — Violation of statutory provision — Promoter's acceptance of 20% of villa cost before entering into and registering an agreement for sale is a direct contravention of Section 13(1) of RERA. India Law Library Docid # 1882146
(990) RUJDAR KHAN Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-05-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal to consumer commission — Grounds for challenge — Appellant challenged State Commission's order dismissing insurance claim for stolen vehicle — Grounds included failure to consider driver's actions, prompt police intimation, and that dismissal encouraged insurer's behavior. India Law Library Docid # 1882153
(991) J.PRAKASH Vs. THE MANAGER [TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-05-2023 Insurance Law — Life Insurance Policy — Premium Payment — Revival of Policy — Cheque Clearance Date — Payment of premium via cheque is considered complete only upon clearance of the cheque, not on the date of issuance. India Law Library Docid # 1882206
(992) HARISH GAS AGENCIES Vs. JAYANTHI [TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-05-2023 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 — SECTION 24-A — LIMITATION — Condonation of Delay — Complaint filed after expiry of prescribed period — Condonation petition filed many years after the complaint — District Commission erroneously condoned delay despite objections and after written arguments were filed — Held, condonation petition should be filed before admitting the complaint — Allowing condonation petition after the complaint is entertained is like putting the cart before the horse — Order condoni India Law Library Docid # 1882236
(993) PROPRIETOR Vs. GAS AGENCIES, H.P. GAS DISTRIBUTORS [TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-05-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24-A — Limitation — Condonation of Delay — Complaint filed in 2010; Condonation petition filed 10 years later — Delay allegedly due to burn injuries and oversight — Respondent argued delay petition should precede complaint, reasons frail, ignorance of law no excuse — District Commission allowed petition citing illiteracy and minimal delay, awarded costs — Court held filing condonation petition after 10 years and entertaining complaint is like "putting the India Law Library Docid # 1882243
(994) MR. ABHIMANYU SINGH BIKA Vs. GRJ DISTRIBUTORS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. [DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-05-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 41 — Appeal against District Commission order — Limitation period for appeal is 45 days from date of order — State Commission may entertain appeal after expiry of period if sufficient cause is shown — However, Court cannot extend limitation period on equitable grounds and must enforce statutory provisions strictly. India Law Library Docid # 1882360
(995) AARAM HOSPITAL, MOTA MANDIR ROAD AND OTHERS Vs. JIGNISHABEN PRADEEPBHAI SHAH STATION ROAD AND OTHERS [GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-05-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Medical Negligence Standard of Proof Burden of proof shifts to the doctor to prove diligence when a prima facie case of negligence is established by the complainant. Doctor failed to prove complainant visited with incomplete abortion or that there was no fault on his part. India Law Library Docid # 1881908
(996) LT. COL. (RETD.) J.S. AHLUWALIA Vs. FORTIS HOSPITAL & 4 OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-05-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24A — Limitation — Dismissal of complaint — Cause of action commencement — Consumer complaints must be filed within two years from the date the cause of action arose. India Law Library Docid # 1882134
(997) DR. S. MOHANKUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. MANGAYARKARASI AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-05-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(o) — Consumer — Service — Free services at Government Hospitals — Services rendered at a government hospital where no charges are made from any person availing the services, and all patients are given free service, are outside the purview of the definition of 'service' under the Act. India Law Library Docid # 1882141
(998) SUMAN SHARMA & OTHERS Vs. M/S. AYUSHMAN HOSPITAL & OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-05-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(a) — Medical Negligence — Complaint filed alleging medical negligence and wrong treatment leading to death — Patient presented with fever, nausea, vomiting, and jaundice — Hospital initially treated for viral hepatitis, as Swine flu symptoms were not evident — Swine flu test conducted later after heated arguments from family, with results positive — Patient transferred to another hospital and subsequently to a government hospital, where he died — Medica India Law Library Docid # 1882144
(999) BAJAJ CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. SUNITA TAK & 3 OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-05-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r) — Deficiency in service, Unfair trade practice — Liability of agent — Unless an agent acts outside the scope of his authority or is found to be a party to any contract or is also a Director or Manager of the Company/Firm, he cannot be held liable for the acts of his Principal — Petitioner acted as a 'Manager to the Fixed Deposit Scheme' and collected deposit amounts for the original company, i.e., Plethico Pharmaceutical Limited. The Petit India Law Library Docid # 1882147
(1000) SMT. PARAMJEET KAUR Vs. DR. S.K. BANSAL & OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-05-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(a)(i) — Medical Negligence — Proof — Burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish deficiency in service or negligence by a medical professional — Unsuccessful treatment or death during surgery does not automatically imply negligence. India Law Library Docid # 1882167