Consumer Cases Weekly Round Up:[16th December – 22 nd December 2024]

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Insured Cannot Assume Obligation On Part Of Bank To Renew Policy: NCDRC Case Title: State Bank of India Vs. R. Vishwanatha Pai Case Number: R.P. No. 4248/2012 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra overruled the State Commission's order against SBI and held that the insured cannot assume obligation on the bank's part to renew the policy unless agreed otherwise. Surveyor's Report Can Only Be Rejected Only On Valid Grounds: NCDRC Case Title: M/S. Hundi Lal Jain Cold Storage & Ice-Factory Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Case Number: F.A. No. 214/2017 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and AVM J. Rajendra in an appeal against United India Insurance held that a surveyor's report is mandatory for insurance claims and it can only be rejected on reasonable grounds. Doctor Not Liable For Negligence If Chosen Treatment Recognized As Sound Medical Practice: NCDRC Case Title: R. Harish Gupta Vs. Kumari Kritika Case Number: R.P. No. 3005/2023 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that doctors are not liable for medical negligence if the disputed treatment is recognized as sound medical practice. Insurance Policies Must Be Read Holistically: NCDRC Holds LIC Liable For Deficiency In Service Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Satwinder Kaur Case Number: R.P. No. 95/2022 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice A.P. Sahi and Dr. Inder Jit Singh held that insurance policies should be read inclusively to meet the reasonable expectations of the insured. NCDRC Cannot Act As An Appellate Court To Re-Examine Facts Case Title: Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO) Vs. Dwarka Prasad Case Number: R.P. No. 1327/2019 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that the NCDRC's revisional jurisdiction is limited in nature and it cannot act as an appellate body. Completed Wrong With Ongoing Effects Does Not Constitute Continuing Wrong: NCDRC Dismisses Petition Against ICICI Case Title: Naresh Kumar Sharma & Anr Vs. ICICI Bank Limited & Anr. Case Number: R.P. No. 1216/2022 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra dismissed a petition against ICICI barred by limitation and held that a completed wrong becomes a continuing wrong only when the breach of duty persists. NCDRC Upholds The Sacrosanct Nature Of Procedural Timeline Of 45 Days For Filing Written Statement Case title: Suman Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs Lucina Land Development ltd. & Anr. Case No: Consumer Case No. 95 of 2024 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh has underscored the importance of procedural timeline given under the Consumer Protection Act for filing of written statement. The bench observed that the initial timeline of 30 days with extension of another 15 days must be adhered to in all respects. It held that a litigant cannot be allowed even a single day beyond the 45th day for filing the written statement. Haryana Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana State Commission Holds Ansal Properties Liable For Delay In Possession, Orders Refund And Compensation Case title: Mrs. Neeru Bala Mahendru vs Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited & Ors. Case No: Consumer Complaint No.481 of 2018 The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana presided by Justice T.P.S Mann (President), Mr. S. P. Sood (Judicial Member) and Ms. Manjula (Member) held Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited liable for delay in possession of residential plot for several years. Further, the commission ordered refund and compensation for deficiency in service. Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Failure To Hand Over Commercial Space To Purchasers Is 'Deficiency In Service': Delhi State Commission Case title: Jai Narayan vs Parsvnath developers Pvt. Ltd Case No: Complaint Case No. 984/2019 The Delhi State Commission has held that default in delivering the commercial space by Parsvnath developers booked by the complainants is 'deficiency in service'. The bench presided by Member Bimla Kumari observed that purchasers cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period of time and thus granted adequate compensation. Insurance Claims Cannot Be Denied For Pre-Existing Ailments Without Prior Medical Tests: Delhi State Commission Case title: Surilla Mathur vs M/s Oriental Insurance Co. ltd Case No: First Appeal 26/2015 The Delhi State Commission has held that denial of insurance claim on the ground of pre-existing ailments is unjustified where no medical tests were conducted ...

Consumer Cases Weekly Round Up:[16th December – 22 nd December 2024]

Amrisha Kumari

Tags