Consumer Cases Monthly Round-Up: October 2023

Supreme Court Consumer Disputes Are Non-Arbitrable, Consumers Can't Be Compelled Into Arbitration: Supreme Court Case Title: M. Hemalatha Devi & Ors V. B. Udayasri, Civil Appeal Nos.6500-6501 of 2023, Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 902 The Supreme Court recently held that consumer disputes are non-arbitrable disputes and that a party cannot be compelled into arbitration just because they are a signatory to an arbitration agreement. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that the Consumer Protection Act is a piece of welfare legislation with the primary purpose of protecting the interest of a consumer. To Hold A Medical Practitioner Liable For Negligence, A Higher Threshold Limit Must Be Met: Supreme Court Case Title: M.A Biviji v. Sunita & Ors. The Supreme Court, while hearing a set of appeals pertaining to the medical negligence matter, observed that to hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold limit must be met. This is to ensure that these doctors are focused on deciding the best course of treatment as per their assessment rather than being concerned about possible persecution or harassment that they may be subjected to in high-risk medical situations. Madhya Pradesh High Court MP High Court Refuses To Quash Summons Against CocaCola For Expired ‘Maaza’ In Restaurant, Says Manufacturer Should Recall Such Products Case Title: Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd & Anr v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh, Through Smt. Nirmala Somkuwar, Food Safety Officer Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently refused to quash criminal proceedings lodged against Coca Cola for an allegedly fungal infected ‘Maaza Mango Drink’ displayed for sale by a retailer. While dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC by the Company and its nominee, the court observed that the former was responsible for ensuring that none of the food products deemed as unsafe post expiry period remain in the store of the retailers, even if the product is not directly sold to the end consumer by the Company. Bombay High Court Judiciary's Role In Appointing Consumer Forum Members Can't Be Diluted: Bombay High Court Strikes Down Rule 6(1) Of Consumer Protection Rules 2020 Case Title: Dr.Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye vs UOI The Bombay High Court at Nagpur has quashed Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 which prescribed two members from the State bureaucracy and only one member from the judiciary on the Selection Committee that recommends appointment of the President and member-judges to the State and District Consumer Commissions. The division bench comprising Justices Atul Chandurkar and Vrushali Joshi observed the rule was “diluting the involvement of the judiciary” and the “lack of judicial dominance” was in “contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers and also an encroachment on the judicial domain.” National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC Grants Limited Relief To Indian Professional Golfer For Loss Of Luggage, Subject To Proving Actual Loss Case Title: Gaganjeet Bhullar vs. M/S Emirates Airlines A consumer complaint filed by Indian professional Golfer Gaganjeet Bhullar against Emirates Airlines for the loss of his baggage was partially allowed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Bhullar alleged that Emirates Airlines had mishandled his baggage, causing him inconvenience and financial losses. The NCDRC bench presided by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya as a member, found that Emirates Airlines (Opposite Party) had met the required standards by delivering Bhullar's missing baggage within 24 hours in the first incident. However, in the second incident, where one bag was lost, the airline was directed to compensate Bhullar within the limit of SDRs 1000, provided he could prove the value of the lost items. However, the commission did not approve Bhullar's claims for compensation related to his missed tournaments and mental stress. Insurance Claim Can Be Rejected On Non-Disclosure Of Material Facts, NCDRC Dismisses Appeal Against Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Case Title: Sushila Singh vs. Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench comprising Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and AVM J. Rajendra (Member) dismissed an appeal against Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. filed by the complainant who was the nominee of her deceased husband. The NCDRC highlighted the importance of good faith in insurance contracts and held that the complainant was not entitled to any refund because the deceased husband failed to convey material facts regarding his health condition to Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. NCDRC Dismisses LIC’s Appeal And Orders It To Disburse Rs. 47.90 Lakh To Nominees Case: Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Dr....

Consumer Cases Monthly Round-Up: October 2023

Apoorva Pandita

Tags