(1) CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK) Vs. JAI KUMAR MITTAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Deficiency in service — Fixed Deposits — Non-renewal — Bank failed to provide justification for the interest rate applied on matured and lapsed Fixed Deposits, leading to a finding of deficient service by the Commission, despite challenges to the State Commission's order. India Law Library Docid # 2428108
(2) MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. Vs. PIYUSH BANGAD AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — National Commission can interfere when lower forums err in law or facts, or exercise jurisdiction arbitrarily — State Commission’s order was bereft of detailed reasons or analysis, merely reproducing facts and dismissing appeals without discussing evidence or contentions of opposite parties — This necessitates remand for fresh disposal. India Law Library Docid # 2428109
(3) KAMLESH YADAV Vs. NATIONAL HEART INSTITUTE AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(a)(i) — Medical Negligence — Deficiency in Service — Compensation — Preliminary issue of maintainability before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) raised by Opposite Parties due to disputed facts and claim for compensation — Held complaint maintainable as it pertains to deficiency in service against providers of medical services. India Law Library Docid # 2428110
(4) M/S. ABT INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. T. CHINTHANAIKUMAR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of Consumer — Commercial Purpose — Defence that transaction was for commercial purposes requires detailed evidence of commercial activities, not just bald allegations of fleet ownership. India Law Library Docid # 2428111
(5) THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. RANJOT SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — First Appeal against State Commission order — Delay condoned — Appeal allowed subject to facts and evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2428101
(6) BHAGWATI PRASAD KANYA MAHAVIDYALAYA Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Failure to provide account details — Bank failed to provide details of a dormant account and made it difficult for the complainant to access their deposited funds, constituting a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. India Law Library Docid # 2428102
(7) SMT. SUMAN D. MANE (DEAD) THROUGH LRS Vs. DIRECTOR, GRANT MEDICAL FOUNDATION AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 13, 21(a)(ii) — Medical Negligence — Deficiency in Service — Standard of Care — Consumer Forum has power to seek expert reports or medical boards for effective disposal of complaint, especially where medical negligence is alleged. India Law Library Docid # 2428103
(8) INDUSIND BANK Vs. RAM PRAKASH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Repossession of vehicle — Bank repossessed a truck due to alleged default in loan repayment. The complainant argued that payments were made on time and sought the loan account statement. The bank did not provide the statement and later sold the truck for a significantly lower price than its market value, despite a small outstanding amount. Both the District Forum and India Law Library Docid # 2428104
(9) M/S PRAGATI INGETS & POWER PVT. LTD. Vs. CHHATTISGARH POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of ‘Consumer’ — Electricity Supply — Company using electricity for manufacturing goods is not necessarily for commercial purpose — Use of electricity for manufacturing is distinct from a sale or profit-generating activity — Plea that corporate nature or use of electricity India Law Library Docid # 2428105
(10) M/S. KENYA AIRWAYS AND OTHERS Vs. SH. RAJIV AGARWAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal — Condonation of Delay — Delay of 141 days in filing appeal condoned as sufficient reasons were shown, preventing miscarriage of justice. India Law Library Docid # 2428106
(11) KUSH PANDEY Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2025 Consumer Protection — Insurance Claims — Fire Incident — Assessment of Loss — Shopkeeper's policy taken for stock worth Rs.10 lakhs. Fire incident occurred, surveyor assessed loss at Rs.2,40,000/- on non-standard basis, citing failure to prove loss, prevention of physical verification and lack of documentary proof. Insurer offered Rs.1,68,000/-, which was declined. State Commission initially allowed the full claim of India Law Library Docid # 2428107
(12) CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, UP CIRCLE, LUCKNOW Vs. CHANDRA PAL SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) — Scope of Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact — The NCDRC, in its revisional jurisdiction, generally will not disturb concurrent findings of fact by the District Commission and State Commission when there is no material to the contrary presented. India Law Library Docid # 2427319
(13) JASWEEN SINGH Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 69 — Limitation — Condonation of Delay — Revision Petition — In the context of a revision petition under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Regulation 14(2) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 grants discretion to the Consumer Commission to condone delay if valid and sufficient reasons are provided to its satisfaction. India Law Library Docid # 2427318
(14) BANAMALI PRAMANICK Vs. MURSHIDABAD MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision — Scope of — Concurrent findings of fact — Revisional jurisdiction of National Commission is extremely limited — It can be exercised only when State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally/with material irregularity — Interference only if findings are against law, pleadings, or India Law Library Docid # 2427317
(15) L JAYAGEETHA Vs. THE MANAGER, INDIAN BANK[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 2(11) — Deficiency in service — Banking Services — Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) — Obligation of Bank to follow RBI Master Circular regarding Form 15G/15H — A bank’s failure to adhere to RBI guidelines (Master Circular dated 01.07.2014, Clause 5.8.10) regarding non-deduction of TDS when Form 15G is submitted by a depositor, without pointing out any specific deficiency in the form at the time of submission or in response to initial objections, constitutes a India Law Library Docid # 2427315
(16) INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. (IRCTC) Vs. DR. PRADEEP KUMAR AND OTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision — Scope of — Concurrent findings of fact — Revisional jurisdiction of National Commission is extremely limited — It can be exercised only when State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally/with material irregularity — Interference only if findings are against law, pleadings, or India Law Library Docid # 2427316
(17) GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY AND OTHER Vs. JUSTICE DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 11(2) — Territorial Jurisdiction — Cause of Action — A consumer complaint can be filed where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. In a case where a train ticket was booked in New Delhi and the reservation change was executed by the Northern Railway Headquarters, also located in New Delhi, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in New Delhi has proper jurisdiction to hear the complaint. India Law Library Docid # 2427314
(18) MS. SABITA RASTOGI Vs. INDIAN SPINAL INJURIES CENTRE[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Hallux Valgus Correction Surgery — Complaint alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service against hospital and orthopaedic surgeon for permanent damage to left foot and second toe after bunion deformity surgery — Complainant argued that the second toe deformity was a direct result of negligent surgery and inadequate post-operative care, procedural lapses like incorrect blood group documentation, hurried India Law Library Docid # 2427312
(19) SUNEEL SINGH Vs. NISAT HOSPITAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in Service — Medical Negligence — Hospital’s Liability — A hospital is responsible for the negligent actions of its doctors, whether employed or on contract. If a hospital fails in its duties through its doctors, it must justify its actions. India Law Library Docid # 2427313
(20) MR. KISHOR N. SHAH Vs. M/S MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-05-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer – Commercial Purpose — A person is a ‘consumer’ under the Act unless goods are obtained for commercial purpose. The burden of proving that goods were purchased for a commercial purpose rests on the opponent-seller. Where a company purchases a car for the personal use of its Director and their immediate family members, and there is no evidence to link the car’s purchase to a profit-generating activity of the company, the buyer is consider India Law Library Docid # 2427310