(241) KULWANT SINGH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-10-2024 Insurance Law Motor vehicle insurance Claim repudiation Accident date disputed Police Daily Diary entries Authenticity of documents Admissibility of evidence Consumer Protection Act, 1986. India Law Library Docid # 2420345
(242) LAKKAM ESWAR REDDY Vs. CONSUMER GUIDANCE SOCIETY REP. K.P. RAVINDRAN AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Jurisdiction — Affirmation of State Commission's order — Highlighting factual aspects, documents, issues of agreement, sale deed, plinth area, parking, and amenities — State Commission correctly appreciated facts and evidence, leading to well-reasoned orders that are upheld. India Law Library Docid # 2419344
(243) M/S. SBI CARDS & PAYMENT SERVICES LTD. Vs. DURGA CHAUHAN[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 empowers the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to call for, examine and pass orders on any consumer dispute which the State Commission has decided, where the State Commission has failed to exercise its jurisdiction or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2419343
(244) M/S. GAUTAM SOLAR PVT. LTD. Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-10-2024 Insurance Law — Fire and Special Perils Policy — Non-settlement of claim — Deficiency in service — Consumer Protection — Delayed claim settlement — Punitive damages. India Law Library Docid # 2419340
(245) SEEMA JEETENDRA LONGANI Vs. M/S. CITICORP FINANCE INDIA LTD. & ANR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — State Commission Order challenged — District Forum allowed complaint partially, directed compensation and loan account closure — State Commission set aside District Forum order, dismissed complaint and complainant's appeal, allowed finance company's appeal — Revision petition filed against State Commission order. India Law Library Docid # 2419341
(246) HDFC BANK LTD. Vs. KAILASH NATH AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21(b) Revision Petition Scope of National Commission has limited role in revision against concurrent findings of fact. India Law Library Docid # 2419342
(247) HDFC BANK LTD. Vs. DIVYA MICHELLE RAJIVA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Bank's Liability — A financing bank lent money for a flat purchase, but the project was not completed. The consumer filed a complaint, and the State Commission held the bank liable for a refund, citing a "hidden agenda." The appeal court found no evidence of collusion or deficiency in the bank's actions, noting that loan disbursements were made as per the complainant's instructions. The court emphasized that a bank is not obligated to guara India Law Library Docid # 2419339
(248) KAMESHWAR MEHTA Vs. GENERAL MANAGR, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 27 read with Section 21(a)(ii) — Delay in filing appeal — Condonation of delay — Appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate and unexplained delay from 2018 to 2020, and again from 2022 to 2024. — Allegations against the previous counsel and the subsequent filing of a writ petition before the High Court also did not sufficiently explain the delay. — The explanation provided lacked rationality, common sense, and pragmatism. — C India Law Library Docid # 2419338
(249) R.P. VERMA AND ANOTHER Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Setting aside State Commission order — Insurance claim — Repudiation on grounds of pre-existing disease and exclusion clause 4.1 — District Forum allowed claim, State Commission dismissed — Court interference warranted when State Commission ignores vital facts or misinterprets law. India Law Library Docid # 2419337
(250) RAKESH SINGH Vs. GREAT MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-10-2024 Housing — Allotment of a residential apartment — Appellant was declared successful in a draw and issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) for an apartment priced at Rs. 55,00,000 — He deposited Rs. 59,75,750 but did not receive possession within the stipulated period —The main issues are the delay in possession, the refund of the deposited amount, and the deduction of 10% of the amount by GMADA — Appellant argued that he was not at fault for the delay in payments, that GMADA wrongly deducted 10% of the India Law Library Docid # 2419333
(251) GENESIS IMMIGRATION AND EDUCATION AND OTHERS Vs. SARITA KINGER AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of Consumer — Consideration for Services — No deficiency in service found when no fee was paid for services related to Canadian immigration applications, and initial Australian immigration services resulted in a positive assessment from VETASSES, despite an eventual rejection due to the applicant's IELTS score. India Law Library Docid # 2419334
(252) HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RUPKUWAR PATEL AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 17, 19, 21(b) — Revisional jurisdiction of National Commission — Limited scope — Interference only in cases of jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity — Cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2419335
(253) LOK NATH Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can interfere with orders of lower consumer fora if they are illegal, irregular, or passed with material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2419336
(254) MS. ALKA GUPTA Vs. M/S DLF UNIVERSAL LTD[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(a)(i) — Deficiency in Service — Possession of flat, refund of excess amount sought. India Law Library Docid # 2419332
(255) M/S. SOHAM MANNAPITLU POWER PVT. LTD. Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Insurance Law — Contract of Insurance — Interpretation of Policy — Accidental Damage — Exclusion Clauses — A claim for damage to a forebay wall was rejected by the insurer on the grounds that the damage was not caused by an "accident" as defined by the policy, but rather by faulty design, poor workmanship, and inadequate maintenance, all of which were excluded causes under the policy. The consumer forum agreed with the insurer that the collapse of the wall, a structure expected to last 50 years, India Law Library Docid # 2419320
(256) NITU KUMARI AND ANOTHER Vs. DR. VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(d), 21(a)(i) — Medical Negligence — Medical Services — Complainant filed complaint alleging medical negligence against doctors and nursing home during treatment. The primary grievance was that the appendix surgery performed by OP-1 led to intestinal perforation, septicaemia, and subsequent serious health complications, including Crohn's disease. The complainant also alleged lack of proper pre-operative tests, faulty consent, collusion for false repor India Law Library Docid # 2419321
(257) JAI INDIA WEAVING MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Insurance Act, 1938 — Section 45 — Avoidance of policy on ground of misrepresentation or suppression of material fact — Contract of insurance is based on utmost good faith — Insured has a fundamental duty to be truthful and transparent in the proposal form — Non-disclosure of medical history, habits, and past surgeries constituted a breach of this principle, even if the misstatements were not material to the cause of death — Every query and information in the proposal form must be full, true, an India Law Library Docid # 2419322
(258) DINESH BALCHAND SHAH Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service, Unfair trade practice — Insurance claim repudiation — Non-disclosure of material facts — Insurer can repudiate a claim if material facts are suppressed in the proposal form, affecting the insurer's decision to underwrite the risk. India Law Library Docid # 2419323
(259) M/S. JINDAL & CO. Vs. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service — Insurance — Exclusion clause — Insurance company issued a policy despite knowing that the stock was kept in the basement and the proposal form specifically indicated coverage for stock in the basement, but later sought to rely on an exclusion clause — Held, this conduct amounted to deficiency in service, as the exclusion clause defeated the very object of the contract from its inception. Supreme Court's ruling in Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v India Law Library Docid # 2419324
(260) OPAL HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. DAMYANTI SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g) Medical Negligence Admissibility of Expert Opinion Court not bound to accept expert opinion in every case Can rely on other evidence, medical literature, and its own assessment Discretion of Fora to allow expert evidence Expert opinion required to explain technical issues and assist in determining negligence. India Law Library Docid # 2419325