Consumer Case Weekly Round-Up: 18th September 2023 – 23rd September 2023

1. Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution NCDRC & Department Of Consumer Affairs Claims A Disposal Rate Of 188% In The Month Of August, 2023 In an official government notification issued on September 19th, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution has announced an outstanding achievement in resolving consumer cases by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). This notification reveals that the National Consumer Commission and Department of Consumer Affiars have resolved a staggering 854 consumer cases in the month of August 2023 alone, whereas only 455 cases were filed during this period. 2. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Removal Of Gall Bladder After Incorrect Diagnosis, NCDRC Orders Delhi Nursing Home, Bhatinda To Pay Rs. 3 Lakhs Compensation Case Title: Arti vs. Dr. Gagandeep Goyal & 3 Ors. Recently, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) held a doctor at Delhi Nursing Home, Bathinda liable for negligence when a patient's gall bladder was wrongly removed during laparoscopic surgery without her consent. The National Commission concluded the doctor had acted negligently by failing to diagnose the patient's perforated appendix and neglecting to refer her to a specialist. Consequently, the doctor was directed to pay Rs 3 lakh in compensation to the patient, who was incorrectly diagnosed and operated on, resulting in her becoming bedridden. 3. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kerala Consumer Forum Orders Ford India To Compensate Lawyer For Failed Car Booking Taken 3 Weeks Before Closing Operations In India Case title: Adv. Manu Nair G V Ford India Pvt. Ltd The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kottayam recently ordered Ford India Pvt. Ltd to pay compensation to a lawyer for failure to deliver an EcoSport Titanium car to him, after taking advance booking just 3 weeks prior to cessation of its operations in India. The booking was taken by Ford's authorized dealer at Kottayam, Kairali Ford, unaware of then forthcoming closure of Ford India. 4. Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Gujarat State Commission Orders Reliance General Insurance To Pay Rs. 1.5 Lakhs To The Insured For Availing Covid-19 Treatment Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Soneshbhai Vashrambhai Patel Recently, the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of M. J. Mehta (President) and J. G. Mecwan (Member) directed the Reliance General Insurance to pay the complainant Rs 1.5 Lakhs for rejecting the insurance claim on the ground that the 'Covid-positive' report he furnished along with other claim documents, was not from a certified laboratory. While the State Commission acknowledged that the complainant did not precisely follow the technicalities of the insurance policy but he made reasonable efforts to take requisite steps and furnish all evidence. 5. Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Recurring Defects In Air Conditioner, Orissa State Commission Holds Godrej, Authorized Service Centre And Dealer Liable For Deficiency In Service Case Title: Customer Care, M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs Arjun Kumar and others Recently, the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Dillip Kumar Mohapatra (Presiding Member) upheld the Bargarh District Commission’s order holding Godrej, its authorized service centre and its dealer jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service for their failure to remedy the defects in the air conditioner which arose just within 1 month of purchase. 6. Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dispute Requires Police Investigation, Can’t Entertain, Uttarakhand State Commission Sets Aside District Commission’s Order Case Title: Oriental Bank of Commerce vs Dev Caterers Recently, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench comprising Ms Kumkum Rani (Judicial Member-II) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member) set aside a District Commission’s order against Oriental Bank of Commerce. The State Commission held that the impugned order was illegal and irregular as the District Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain a criminal matter which required thorough investigation by the police officials. Moreover, the transaction between the complainant and Oriental Bank of Commerce was commercial, keeping it outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986. 7. Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I Unilateral Payment Demands Amount to Unfair Trade Practice, Chandigarh District Commission Holds Indian Railway Welfare Organization Liable Case Title: Shyam Sunder Garg vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization Recently, the Chandigarh...

Consumer Case Weekly Round-Up: 18th September 2023 – 23rd September 2023

Smita Singh

Tags