ive
User not Logged..
India's Biggest Headnotes Library over 53.69 Lakhs Headnotes
    Free Artificial Intelligence Drafting  

    Free Artificial Intelligence Case Analyzer  

   AI Submission Generator   

Latest Cases

(441) CHANDRA PRAKASH AND ANOTHER Vs. CHANDER CLINIC AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Medical Negligence Standard of Proof Burden of proof on hospital to show no negligence Once patient dies due to lack of proper care, burden shifts to hospital to justify.
India Law Library Docid # 2416473

(442) SMT. SURESH RANI THROUGH SHRI ROHIT GOYAL Vs. KAILASH HOSPITAL AND HEART INSTITUTE AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2024
Medical Negligence Drug Administration Use of Lasix and Mannitol for hypertension and cerebral edema respectively, when administered with cautious monitoring and in line with medical protocols, is not considered negligent.
India Law Library Docid # 2416470

(443) RANI CHILDREN HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. RAJESH KUMAR JHA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 19 — Cross appeals filed challenging State Commission's order partly allowing complaint and seeking enhancement of compensation.
India Law Library Docid # 2416471

(444) INDUMATI Vs. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-07-2024
Insurance Act, 1938 — Section 45 — Policy conditions — Repudiation of claim — Non-disclosure of material facts — Deceased insured, a doctor, failed to disclose previous history of pleural effusion and tuberculosis treatment, and hospitalization for metabolic encephalopathy in the proposal form — Omission to disclose these ailments, particularly tuberculosis, was deliberate and fraudulent, as it could affect the risk profile and potentially lead to rejection or higher premium — Medical examinatio
India Law Library Docid # 2416472

(445) SWARJEET SAGI AND OTHERS Vs. D. SRINIVAS AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in service — Misjoinder of parties — Liability of partners for firm's actions — Parties claimed they were not partners of the development firm, GHARONDA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS — They argued they were wrongly included as opposite parties in the complaint — Although their right to file a written version was forfeited and their appeals against dismissal of applications were dismissed, the court noted lack of evidence proving their partne
India Law Library Docid # 2416090

(446) BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD Vs. BEDAMO DEVI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Limited Scope — National Commission's power to revise is very limited and mainly applies when State Commission has acted beyond its jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted with illegality or material irregularity — Concurrent findings of facts by lower forums are generally not to be interfered with in revision.
India Law Library Docid # 2416092

(447) SHANKAR SARAN Vs. CHAIRMAN APOLLO HOSPITALS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r) — Deficiency in service — Unfair trade practice — Compulsory registration fee — Hospital's requirement of registration and charging a fee for it before medical consultation does not amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice if the patient is informed about it and it's for preserving patient details for future reference, especially when the patient is not in an emergency situation.
India Law Library Docid # 2416093

(448) IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. HARMANPREET SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Jurisdiction — No illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error found in the State Commission's order warranting interference in revision.
India Law Library Docid # 2416094

(449) DR. UMA ARORA Vs. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Jurisdiction — Multiple opposite parties — Where one of the opposite parties is declared to be a co-service provider, proceedings can continue against it even if another opposite party is subject to moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
India Law Library Docid # 2416095

(450) NITIN AGARWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24-A — Limitation — Cause of action for claiming delay compensation and refund of excess amount arose on the date of offer of possession or final demand, not on the date of taking possession — Delay in filing complaint beyond two years from cause of action renders the complaint time-barred.
India Law Library Docid # 2416096

(451) VINEET KUMAR DIXIT AND ANOTHER Vs. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Concurrent findings of fact by District Forum and State Commission — If the State Commission's order is well-reasoned and based on facts and law, it is not subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction.
India Law Library Docid # 2416091

(452) THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. KESHAR DEO AGARWALA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Insurance Policy — Fire Insurance — Coverage of basement — State Consumer Commission allowed complainant's claim for destruction of stock in basement — Insurance Company repudiated claim stating basement was not part of insured premises — High Court found State Commission's conclusion that entire building including basement was covered to be erroneous — Policy details showed nil sum insured for 'building plinth and foundation' and 'compound wall' — Total sum insur
India Law Library Docid # 2416097

(453) DR. FUL KANT JHA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-07-2024
Insurance Law — Overseas Travel Insurance Policy — Exclusion Clause for Pre-existing Conditions — Policy Exclusion for Pre-existing Disease and Related Complications — Complainant suffered a heart attack and underwent bypass surgery while overseas. The insurer repudiated the claim, citing Clause 10(c) of the policy, which excluded pre-existing conditions and their complications. The insurer's medical panel and hospital records indicated that the complainant had a history of hypertension, diabete
India Law Library Docid # 2416104

(454) DEPUTY SECRETARY, KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ESTATE (M & M ) UNIT, K.M.D.A, AND ANOTHER Vs. DR. SWAMI ANAND GIRI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary jurisdiction — National Commission's power to interfere is limited to cases where State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Interference is warranted only if findings are against law, pleadings, evidence, or are perverse.
India Law Library Docid # 2416099

(455) SANT'S HYUNDAI. (A UNIT OF AMRIT AUTO) SANT BHAWAN Vs. S. K. SHARMA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(B) — Revision Petition — Scope of — National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can interfere with the order of the State Commission only if it is illegal, irregular or has jurisdictional error — In this case, the NCDRC found no such error in the State Commission's order, thus upholding it.
India Law Library Docid # 2416102

(456) ANGREJ SINGH Vs. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 21(b) Revision Petition Scope National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) upholds the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) which had set aside the District Forum's order allowing the claim on a non-standard basis in a motor insurance case.
India Law Library Docid # 2416103

(457) ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. DEBENDRA KAMILA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Condonation of delay — Sufficient cause — Petitioner sought condonation of 266 days delay in filing Revision Petition — Petitioner claimed ignorance of impugned order until receipt of execution notice and alleged non-receipt of certified copy — Petitioner also cited delays by their legal firm — Held, petitioner being appellant before State Commission was expected to follow up diligently — Plea of ignorance was not acceptable, particularly in absenc
India Law Library Docid # 2416100

(458) COMMISSIONER, NAGAR PARISHAD Vs. SHIVLAL BHAGAT[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Powers of Revisional Court — Court should not interfere unless there is illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the lower forum.
India Law Library Docid # 2416101

(459) AGRAWAL TRANSPORT COMPANY THROUGH PROPRIETOR GOPAL AGRAWAL Vs. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN S/O RAJMAL JAIN[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 58(1)(b) Revision Petition Dismissal in default Restoration of appeal State Commission dismissed appeal for non-appearance of appellant National Commission restored appeal due to lack of adjudication on merits and to prevent miscarriage of justice Granted opportunity to present case on merits, subject to costs.
India Law Library Docid # 2416106

(460) M/S. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. GURMEET SINGH AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope — Scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to correct errors of law, not to re-appreciate evidence unless finding is perverse — Partys failing to adduce evidence for crucial aspects — Forged receipts not resulting in perjury proceedings — Claim of illegal repossession of vehicle not substantiated by evidence adduced — Revisional Court setting aside erroneous findings of lower forums on facts.
India Law Library Docid # 2416107