(21) S.M. JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. DR. ALOK MATHUR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Doctor's failure to record diagnosis on prescription — Allegation against family physician (OP-1) for failing to diagnose severe pneumonia and adopting a casual approach — Initial treatment provided by OP-1 was found by the Delhi Medical Council (DMC) to cover the "entire spectrum of the prevailing clinical situation"; India Law Library Docid # 2437372
(22) DR. ANITA PANWAR AND OTHERS Vs. MEENA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care (Bolam Test) — Liability of Doctor — Expert Opinion — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) is not bound by concurrent findings of lower fora in medical negligence cases where no expert opinion was relied upon — Expert opinion plays a crucial role in determining whether the standard of care expected has been breached — A doctor is not negligent if they act in accorda India Law Library Docid # 2437373
(23) M/S. TIME TECHNOPLAST LIMITED COMPANY (EARLIER SUPERMAID) Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection — Deficiency in Service — Insurance Claim — Fire Policy (Reinstatement Basis) — Claim for deficit amount and interest due to delayed payment — Insured factory suffered total loss in 1999, initial adhoc payment made in 2000, final payments made in April 2003, and discharge vouchers signed simultaneously — Subsequent complaint filed in 2004 disputing settlement amount India Law Library Docid # 2437449
(24) RADHARAMANA COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. Vs. TATA MOTORS LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Manufacturing Defect vs. Driving Error — Luxury Car Purchase — Complainant alleged manufacturing defect (wobbling, juddering) in a Range Rover (purchased in 2010), leading to frequent repair visits for brake issues — Manufacturer (Opposite Party) contended defects were due to reckless driving and failure to adhere to Owner's Manual, citing India Law Library Docid # 2437450
(25) K.G.M. HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. SANDEEP KAUR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Proof — Comparative weight of findings in criminal and consumer proceedings — An acquittal in criminal proceedings (reaching up to the Supreme Court) against a doctor for criminal negligence related to the same facts, after thoroughly examining expert and medical evidence, and rejecting allegations of forgery and manipulated disability, India Law Library Docid # 2437451
(26) SANJAY GANDHI POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES THROUGH DIRECTOR AND OTHERS Vs. RAJENDDRA NATH KESERWANI AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection — Medical Negligence — Standard of Proof — Allegations of medical negligence against SGPGI and doctors in treating a child for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) — Complainant failed to adduce conclusive and convincing evidence of medical negligence — Diagnosis and line of treatment, including chemotherapy, were in accordance with medical protocols and there was no evidence to suggest such treatment was wrong — Expert medical opinion was not India Law Library Docid # 2437452
(27) RAJBIR SINGH BRAR Vs. ESS KAY FINCORP LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Sections 41, 47(1)(a)(iii), 51(2), 71, 72, 73 — Second Appeal against enforcement/execution proceedings — Maintainability — An appeal under Section 51(2) of the 2019 Act is not maintainable before the National Commission against an order passed by the State Commission in appellate jurisdiction, which arises out of enforcement/execution proceedings under Section 71 of the Act (Order of enforcement/execution). India Law Library Docid # 2437453
(28) ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. HARVINDER SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission — Scope and limitations — Paramount consideration is whether State Commission acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally/with material irregularity — National Commission has limited power and cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on evidence India Law Library Docid # 2437454
(29) SHRI RAMCHANDRA YADAV Vs. THE ADMINISTRATOR SECRETARIAT AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — Maintainability of Complaint — Free Medical Service in Government Hospital — Where a Government Hospital (OP-2) provides medical services free of charge to the patient, and the Complainant fails to produce any evidence of payment or consideration for the services rendered, the patient does not qualify as a 'consumer' India Law Library Docid # 2437455
(30) THE BUNDI CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Vs. MAHARAJ SHRI AMARDAS JI KHAKI SMRITI SANSTHAN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Bank Customer Deposit — Embezzlement by Bank Employee — Where complainants deposited amounts in their bank accounts, received deposit receipts bearing the bank's official stamp and cashier's initials, and obtained corresponding passbook entries, the bank is liable for deficiency in service even if the amount was subsequently embezzled by a bank employee and not reflected in the bank's official records. India Law Library Docid # 2437369
(31) BAJAJ ALLIANZ GIC LTD. Vs. SMT. SOVANA CHATTERJEE AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) [and Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 2(7)] — ‘Consumer’ — Beneficiary of services — Scope of ‘Consumer’ definition includes a beneficiary of services, availed with the approval of the person who hires or avails the services, even if the beneficiary is not directly privy to the contract of insurance — Deceased account holder, benefiting from an accidental insurance policy taken by the Bank (OP-1) for account holders, and his India Law Library Docid # 2437370
(32) MRS. SAVITRI DEVI Vs. DR. N.N. KHANNA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-11-2025 Consumer Protection — Medical Negligence — Standard of Proof — General Principles — A doctor is not negligent if acting in accordance with acceptable medical norms, unless evidence from a medical body of skilled persons suggests accepted principles were not followed — Liability arises only if conduct falls below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in the field — Mere error of judgment, accident, mischance, misadventure, or error in choosing between two India Law Library Docid # 2437371
(33) SMT. SARABJEET KAUR Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF MEDICAL SERVICE ARMY AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 2(42) (‘Service’) — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(o) (‘Service’) — Medical Services — Maintainability of Consumer Complaint — Free services provided by Military Hospitals — Services rendered free of charge at a government hospital to all persons (rich and poor) are outside the purview of ‘service’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and 2019 — Military Hospitals render services to armed forces personnel and their dependents ab India Law Library Docid # 2437368
(34) PRESIDENCY INDRAHEIGHTS PVT. LTD. Vs. RITA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-11-2025 Consumer Protection — Consumer Complaint — Written Version (Written Statement) — Limitation for filing — Service of Notice — Where notice of the complaint was served on the Appellant/Opposite Party on 31.01.2024, the statutory 30-day period for filing the Written Version expired on 02.03.2024, and the 15-day grace period ended on 17.03.2024 — Any Written Version filed thereafter is beyond the statutory period — Attempting to file the Written Version on 24.07.2024 (c. 6 India Law Library Docid # 2437365
(35) DILAWAR NANSEY Vs. KAPILDEO PRASAD AMBASTHA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-11-2025 Consumer Protection — Deficiency in Service — Occupation Certificate (OC) — Builder's Obligation — Handing over possession without obtaining the mandatory Occupation Certificate (OC) from municipal authorities constitutes an illegal act and a continuing deficiency in service by the builder — Builder cannot be absolved of this statutory obligation even if the delay is attributed to illegal modifications by other flat owners. India Law Library Docid # 2437366
(36) RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Motor Insurance — Vehicle Theft Claim — Repudiation — Grounds for Repudiation — Delay in intimation of theft to insurer — Repudiation on the ground of delay in intimation is not tenable following the Supreme Court's decision in Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. India Law Library Docid # 2437367
(37) SMT. SUMAN AGRAWAL AND OTHERS Vs. M/S. LAKSHYA REAL INFRA PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Jurisdiction of National Commission — The National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition where the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — The present case, entertained in exceptional circumstances, involved a revision against an order passed by the State Commission on a Miscellaneous Application in a d India Law Library Docid # 2437359
(38) KRISHAN LAL Vs. TATA MOTORS MARKETING AND CUSTOMER SUPPORT AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope — The revisional jurisdiction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is limited; it does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless the order suffers from perversity or jurisdictional error. India Law Library Docid # 2437360
(39) SHRI DARSHAN PAL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. AIR INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Airline flight delay — Force Majeure (Bad Weather/ATC Directives) — The operating airline is not liable to pay compensation for flight delays caused by force majeure events or extraordinary circumstances beyond its control, such as adverse meteorological conditions or directives from Air Traffic Control (ATC), as mandated by DGCA Guidelines (Clauses 1.4 and 1.5). India Law Library Docid # 2437361
(40) M/S PATEL HOME FURNISHING PROPRIETOR SHRI BRAJKISHOR PATEL Vs. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-11-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Fire Insurance Policy — Repudiation of Claim — Grounds for Repudiation — Insured's responsibility to notify insurer of change in risk location — Insurance policy covering stock/goods at a specific address — Loss occurred at a different, un-notified location — The Insured had shifted the hypothecated stock and informed the lending Bank, which was a joint insured, requesting the Bank to inform the Insurer — No evidence showed the Bank India Law Library Docid # 2437362