Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 1st October 2023 to 8th October 2023

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. Nilam Hetalkumar Patel & 4 Ors. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) dismissed an appeal by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) against an order of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The NCDRC ordered LIC to pay Rs 47.90 lakh to the nominees of the complainant for rejecting the claims on the basis that the complainant had not disclosed material facts at the time of policy issuance. Delay In Conducting H1N1 Test Constitute Medical Negligence: NCDRC Directs Fortis Hospital To Pay Compensation Case Title: Niraj Kumar Sindhu & Anr. vs. Fortis Hospital & Anr. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided over by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sudip Ahlwalia allowed a revision petition with regard to a consumer complaint filed by the family members of a deceased patient, alleging negligence on the part of attending doctor and Fortis Hospital.The Commission held that the hospital's failure to promptly test the patient for H1N1 constituted a case of medical negligence. As a result, the Commission restored the district commission's order, which had directed Fortis Hospital (Opposite Party no. 1) and the attending doctor (Opposite Party no. 2) to pay Rs. 3,64,075/- to the complainants, along with an additional Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs. Ganjam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Unilateral Cancellation Of Online Order Amounts To Unfair Trade Practice, Ganjam District Commission Holds Flipkart Liable Case Title: Sri Gandhi Behera vs. Flipkart Internet Private Limited The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ganjam, Berhampur bench comprising Satish Kumar Panigrahi (President) held Flipkart liable for unfair trade practices for cancelling the order without the consent of the complainant. The bench noted that Flipkart listed the product at a discounted rate, accepted the complainant's order, and later cancelled it without a valid explanation. This behaviour was misleading and unfair to the consumer. Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- “Royal Dhaba”, Chandigarh, Held Liable For Not Refunding Excess Amount Collected Case Title: Prashant Sethi vs GAZB 26 Royal Dhaba The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, headed by Mr. Pawanjit Singh and Mrs. Surjeet Kaur, allowed a consumer complaint. They held a local eatery in Chandigarh, known as the "Royal Dhaba," accountable for charging an astonishing ten times more than the actual bill. The complainant had a billing dispute with the Dhaba. Instead of a reasonable Rs. 465/-, he was charged Rs. 4,650/-. Despite repeated requests for a refund of the excess amount, the Dhaba refused to refund the excess amount. As a result, the Commission held that the restaurant's actions amounted to both a service deficiency and unfair trade...

Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 1st October 2023 to 8th October 2023

Apoorva Pandita

Tags