Supreme Court Quarterly Digest on Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [July To September 2022]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Delivering a defective and old model car against a booking for a new car made by a customer who has paid full sale consideration is an "unfair trade practice" - Non delivery of a new car can be said to be an unfair trade practice and even it can be said to be dishonesty on the part of the dealer and against the morality and ethics - Once the new car was booked and the full sale consideration was paid, a duty was cast upon the dealer to deliver a new car which is not defective. (Para 7.2) Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 750 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record (Para 7.1) Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 750 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Insurance Claims - The delay in processing the claim and delay in repudiation could be one of the several factors for holding an insurer guilty of deficiency in service. But it cannot be the only factor. (Para 24) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashikala J. Ayachi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 591 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Medical Negligence - The cause of action for claiming compensation in cases of failed sterilization operation arises on account of negligence of the surgeon and not on account of child birth. Failure due to natural causes would not provide any ground for claim. It is for the woman who has conceived the child to go or not to go for medical termination of pregnancy. Having gathered the knowledge of conception in spite of having undergone sterilization operation, if the couple opts for bearing the child, it ceases to be an unwanted child. Compensation for maintenance and upbringing of such a child cannot be claimed. Civil Hospital v. Manjit Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 781 Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(d)(ii) - Consumer complaint alleging premature encashment of Joint Fixed Deposit by bank in contravention of the terms and conditions is maintainable - A person who avails of any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a 'consumer' under the 1986 Act. As a consequence, it would be open to such a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies provided under the 1986 Act. (Para 19) Arun Bhatiya v. HDFC Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 696 Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(o) - Doctors and hospitals who render service without any charge whatsoever to every person availing of the service would not fall within the ambit of 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purposes only would not alter the position in respect of such doctors and hospitals. Civil Hospital v. Manjit Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 781

Supreme Court Quarterly Digest on Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [July To September 2022]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags