(421) GURVINDER KAUR Vs. DR. BHARTI GUPTA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Delay in filing — Condoned — Revision Petition filed against State Commission's order setting aside District Forum's order which partly allowed consumer complaint — Delay of 4 days in filing revision petition was condoned. India Law Library Docid # 2416450
(422) DR. AMBUJAKSHA SINHA MAHAPATRA AND ANOTHER Vs. AMALENDU BHATTACHARJEE[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition filed by OP-1 (Doctor) and OP-2 (Nursing Home) against the State Commission's order allowing the Complainant's appeal and setting aside the District Forum's order dismissing the complaint — State Commission found deficiency in service and medical negligence on the part of OP-1 for allegedly wrong diagnosis and treatment for acute pancreatitis, based on USG and MRCP reports, despite clinical symptoms — District Forum had dismissed India Law Library Docid # 2416451
(423) STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. BIRESH CHANDRA GANGOPADHYAY AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 51 Appeal against State Commission order Order partly allowing complainant's claim directing bank to reimburse unauthorized transactions with interest and compensation Appeal filed by the Bank. India Law Library Docid # 2416452
(424) SREE KARUNA NURSING HOME & SCANNING CENTRE AND ANOTHER Vs. KAYALA TRINADHA SIVA SANKARA REDDY AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against Order of State Commission — Delay in filing — Condonation — Delay of 21 days in filing appeal condoned based on reasons stated in application. India Law Library Docid # 2416453
(425) AIR CANADA Vs. MINALI MITTAL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against order of State Commission — Complainant booked return tickets with Jet Airways and Air Canada for journey from Chandigarh to Toronto — Faced issues: delay in boarding passes, locked washrooms emitting foul smell causing minor daughter to vomit, leading to deplaning, loss of luggage, distress and humiliation — State Commission allowed complaint for deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, and violation of human and child rights, aw India Law Library Docid # 2416454
(426) M/S. BHUPINDER TYRES WORKS Vs. NEW INDIAASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal — Filing delay — Condonation — Delay of 7 days in filing First Appeal — Condoned for reasons stated in application. India Law Library Docid # 2416455
(427) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NOVEX ENTERPRISES[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 17 — Appeal against State Commission order — Insurance claim for damaged goods due to rain — Repudiation by insurer citing non-compliance with surveyor's document requests — State Commission directed payment of loss and compensation — Insurance company appealed, arguing cryptic order and lack of expert opinion — Held, State Commission's order was reasoned after remand and provided grounds for decision — Surveyor's report acknowledged receipt of documents, India Law Library Docid # 2416456
(428) BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA (FORMALLY VIJAYA BANK) Vs. SURESH BALIGA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service — Insurance — Bank's role as proposer — A Jeweller obtained a Jeweller's Block Policy from an insurance company. The policy was negotiated and the proposal form was filled by the Branch Manager of the appellant Bank. The policy only covered premises at Door No. 4-108, but the burglary occurred at Door No. 4-111, which housed the Jeweller's main business and stock. The insurance company repudiated the claim because the damaged premises were no India Law Library Docid # 2416462
(429) DAGA AUTO DISTRIBUTORS Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURNACE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-07-2024 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Explanation for delay was inadequate and unconvincing, particularly given the appellant's business background. Although COVID-19 related extensions were claimed, the period between September 2019 and March 2020 remained unexplained. India Law Library Docid # 2416457
(430) KAPIL VERMA Vs. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Insurance Policy Breach of Fundamental Condition Repudiation of Claim Vehicle involved in an accident was plying without a valid route permit, which constitutes a fundamental breach of the insurance policy. The Insurance Company was therefore justified in repudiating the claim. India Law Library Docid # 2416458
(431) THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. AMITA DHIMAN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Challenging order of State Commission upholding District Commission's order — Petitioner sought setting aside of both orders. India Law Library Docid # 2416459
(432) TOWN IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. ANITA RANI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 24A, 12 — Deficiency in service — Unfair trade practice — Delay in possession — Failure to provide amenities — Unreasonable delay in handing over possession of flats, failure to provide essential amenities like water, drainage, and electricity, and charging extra for stilt parking without adequate provision constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. India Law Library Docid # 2416463
(433) TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. RAJENDER SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — National Commission's power is limited to cases where State Commission acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Interference is only warranted if findings are against law, pleadings, evidence, or are perverse — Concurrent findings of fact by lower forums based on appreciation of evidence are generally not to be disturbed in revision. India Law Library Docid # 2416464
(434) KOTAK MAHINDRA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. DR. CAPT. S. SRINIVASAN[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 19 — Appeal against State Commission Order — First Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. India Law Library Docid # 2416465
(435) SAYANTI DUTTA AND OTHERS Vs. SAMIR MAJUMDAR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — First Appeal — Delay in filing — Delay of 185 days condoned as it occurred during the period of suspended limitation due to COVID-19. India Law Library Docid # 2416466
(436) POLICE DEPARTMENT Vs. LOVEPREET SINGH AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d), Section 21(b) — "Service" — "Deficiency in service" — Deductions from salary for insurance premium — Police department stopping deductions on alleged oral request of deceased employee — Whether police department providing "service" under the Act — Department's failure to obtain written instructions for stopping deductions and not intimating employee about cessation of deductions constitutes deficiency in service — State Commission's order holding India Law Library Docid # 2416460
(437) KAMAL NARAYAN VERMA Vs. GAYATRI HOSPITAL AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — National Commission's powers are very limited — Can only interfere if State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally/with material irregularity — Cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact on appreciation of evidence unless such conditions are met. India Law Library Docid # 2416461
(438) CA RAMAKANT G SOMANI S/O. GANGABISHAN SOMANI Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-07-2024 Insurance Act, 1938 — Section 45 — Misstatement or suppression of material facts — Repudiation of life insurance claim — Policyholder's husband claimed life insurance after death of his wife from cancer — Insurance company repudiated claim based on suppressed pre-existing heart condition from proposal form — Court found evidence from discharge summary of hospital indicating history of myocardial infarction, which was not disclosed in proposal form answering "no" to heart disease question — Non-d India Law Library Docid # 2416467
(439) SURINDER KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of revisional jurisdiction — Limited to cases where State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested by law, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Interference only warranted if findings are against law, pleadings, evidence, or are perverse. India Law Library Docid # 2416468
(440) NEW DELHI INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES Vs. SHAMANESHWARAM AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-07-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Revisionary jurisdiction of National Commission — Limited scope — Interference only if State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Cannot interfere with concurrent findings on appreciation of evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2416469