Consumer Cases Annual Digest 2024 [Part -I]

Supreme Court Medical Negligence | Supreme Court Awards Rs 10 Lakh Compensation To Patient Who Developed Hoarseness In Voice After Trainee Gave Anaesthesia Case Title: J. DOUGLAS LUIZ (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VERSUS MANIPAL HOSPITAL | CIVIL APPEAL NO.1700 OF 2024 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 134 The Supreme Court recently awarded Rs. 10 lakhs compensation to a patient who developed hoarseness in his voice due to medical negligence committed by doctors while administering anaesthesia. The patient (now deceased) claimed compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only), against the faulty operation done by the Manipal hospital which resultantly developed hoarseness in his voice. However, the District Forum had suo moto arrived at a rough and ready figure of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) payable as compensation to the appellant without furnishing any reasons for arriving at the said figure. Supreme Court Apple Has No Duty To Trace Stolen iPhone Using Unique Identity Number: Supreme Court Case Title : Apple India Pvt Ltd v. Harish Chandra Mohanty and others Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 138 The Supreme Court obliterated an observation made by the Odisha State Consumer Commission that Apple India has the duty to trace a stolen iPhone with the help of a unique identity number provided by it. The Supreme Court stated that the observation made by the Consumer Commission was "unwarranted". The Bench Comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing an appeal filed by Apple India against the Consumer Commission's order, which was passed in a complaint filed over stolen iPhone. Supreme Court Consumer Protection Act 1986 | Onus Of Proving That Service Was Availed For 'Commercial Purpose' Is On Service Provider : Supreme Court Case Title: SHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD VERSUS RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES In an important ruling relating to consumer protection law, the Supreme Court on Friday (May 10) set out the manner in which the consumer fora must decide technical pleas raised by service providers against the maintainability of the consumer complaints on the ground that goods/services were availed by the consumer for the commercial purposes. High Court of Bombay Bombay High Court : Questions On Concession By Party Before Maha RERA, Correct Approach Is To First File Review Before RERA Than Appeal To Maha REAT The Bombay High Court bench, comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne, has held that it is improper for a homebuyer to appeal before the Appellant Tribunal (MahaREAT) claiming that a concession recorded by the Authority (MahaRERA) was erroneous, without first filing an application before MahaRERA to review the order. Calcutta High Court Consumer Forum Cannot Assume Jurisdiction When Special Statue Prescribes Arbitration; Calcutta High Court Set Aside West Bengal State Commission Order Case Title: The Secretary, E & NF Railway Junior Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Eastern Railway vs Sri Jyotish Chandra Sarkar & Anr. The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that consumer forum cannot assume jurisdiction when a special statue prescribes for arbitration and designates a forum for adjudication of disputes. It held that a special law takes precedence over a general law. Telangana High Court No Statutory Basis To Claim Exemption From Packaging Requirements Under Packaged Commodities Rules, PepsiCo Must Comply: Telangana High Court Case Title: Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd. vs Union of India The Telangana High Court division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti dismissed a writ petition filed by PepsiCo to claim an exemption under certain packaging requirements mandated by Rule 6(1)(a) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rejection Of A Surveyor's Report Must Be Due To Arbitrariness: NCDRC Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. M/S. Khadi Udhyog The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra, held that the surveyor's report in an insurance incident can only be rejected based on pervasiveness and arbitrariness National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Limitation Period Under Policy Is Shorter Than Statutory Period For Filing Complaint, Unenforceable And Void: NCDRC Holds Oriental Insurance Liable For Deficiency In Service The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker(member), held that the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides a two-year limitation period for filing a complaint, and the insurer cannot reduce it through a policy clause. Case Title: M/S. R.R. Energy Ltd. Vs. Oriental...

Consumer Cases Annual Digest 2024 [Part -I]

Apoorva Pandita

Tags