consumer disputes

This tag is associated with 28 posts

Medical negligence- when the complainant went for abdominal treatment, the doctor while injecting saline through intravenous transfusion, she damaged the vain of the complainant which resulted into septic, and finally removal of her fore arm and as such damage awarded due to the fault of doctor. both forms confirmed and their lord ships dismissed this revision of the doctor=2. Both the fora below have come to the conclusion that her condition was due to the damage to the vain and resultant septicemia caused by negligence in the process of intravenous transfusion of saline and blood administered to the Complainant during her treatment by the revision petitioner. The complaint petition gives details of not only the medical consequences of the alleged negligence, but also resultant financial cost to the Complainant. For this, a total compensation of Rs.3.46 lakhs, was sought against which Rs.2.75 lakhs has been awarded. “Here in the present case, we also find that the chain of incident and circumstances under which the complication took place to the patient started under the care of appellant-doctor, on the basis of which there is only one inference of negligence of the appellant is drawn. Therefore, the respondent do not require to provide any further opinion of expert on the subject. The Complainant has succeeded to make out a case of negligence whereas the appellant failed to prove her innocence.”

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION                                                NEW DELHI                                                 REVISION PETITION NO. 4094 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 18.8.2011 in First Appeal No.921/2006 of the State Commission, Bihar) Dr. Amita Srivastava W/o Dr. B.K.Srivastava Mohalla: Dahiyawan District Saran at Chapra, Bihar                                                                                                             ……….Petitioner Versus   Smt. Poonam Devi W/o Dev Nath Prasad Village Rampur, District Saran at Chapra, Bihar                                                                                                             ………Respondent   BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA,                               PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. … Continue reading

When the society failed to refund the deposited amounts of the customers, they failed complaint ,the society remained exparte, when executions filed seeking arrest of the society concerns, the society filed appeal with delay, both dismissed by state commission, on the revision their lord ships upheld that it is only frivolous litigation and further more found that they have not filed any appeal against the arrest warrant and directly question the same is illegal. and as such dismissed the revisions with costs.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION  PETITION  NO.    244    OF   2012 WITH (IA no.1 of 2012, for Stay) (From the order dated  09.01.2012  in  Appeal No.13/2012   of the State Commission,  Haryana, Panchkula)   Suresh Bhatia Alleged President/Secretary/ Member Committee M.D.U. Employees Corporation Urban (S.E) Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. (Regd. 119B) R/o H.No.111, Subhash Nagar, Rohtak (Haryana)   PRESENTLY AT :   H.No.157/B-III, Old Gohana Adda, Rohtak (Haryana)                                                   … Petitioner        Vs.  1.    Ms. Parmila Sharma … Continue reading

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, allowed the complaint in the following terms:- “Complainant is hereby directed to pay an amount as per the allotment letter dated 29/09/2005 excluding the amount already paid. In order to avail the facility of Housing loan, opponent is directed to hand over copies of legal and technical sanction of the project and approved plan sanctioned by the Pune Municipal Corporation within a period of 15 days. On receipt of payment of consideration as per allotment letter dated 29/09/2005 the opponent is hereby directed to execute Sale deeds of flat nos.301 & 302 in “Dorabjee Enclave” and hand over possession to the complainant within one month. Opponent is hereby directed to pay compensation of 1 lakh to the complainant for mental agony and harassment within a period of two months from the date of order. Opponent to pay cost of 10,000/- to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of order and bear his own costs.

   NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   NEW DELHI   FIRST APPEAL NO. 346 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 3.05.2011 in Complaint Case No.CC/09/52 of the State Commission, Maharashtra)     M/s. Dorabjee Estates Pvt. Ltd. Prime Arcade, Office No.1, 1154, Saifee Street, Pune 411 001 Maharashtra                                                                                            ……….Appellant                                                                              Versus   Mr. Shoan Ashok Khetarpal C/32, Hriparva Wanwadi, Pune 411 001, Maharashtra                                                                       ………Respondent   BEFORE … Continue reading

3. We have heard Mr. Balraj Malik, Advocate at the stage of admission, after the revision petition was restored by our order dated 16.12.2011. We specifically enquired with the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant if any documentary evidence had been filed before the District Forum (a) to substantiate that 60 kg of paddy seeds were sufficient for sowing over an area of 15 acres; (b) regarding the likely average yield of paddy in that area; and (c) regarding the prevalent market (Mandi) rate of paddy at the relevant time. He accepted that no such document/evidence was filed by the petitioner before the District Forum in support of his contentions regarding the amount of loss suffered by him on account of the alleged defects in the paddy seeds but contended that the claims of the petitioner/complainant on the loss, etc., were not denied by the opposite parties before the District Forum. It is settled law that it is for the complainant to establish the loss, if any, suffered by him on account of any defect in the goods supplied (or deficiency in any service availed of) by producing acceptable evidence, supported by documents. Mere claim of loss and/or compensation of a certain amount cannot be accepted at face value. It is thus clear that the award of the District Forum was more a conjecture than being based on any cogent evidence. The State Commission was, thus, fully justified in modulating the award in the manner it did, particularly because the technical team reported that the quality of the seeds appeared to be one of the factors responsible for poor germination of the seeds – it was thus not the sole or predominant factor.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION No. 1808 of 2011 (From the order dated 24.01.2011 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in Appeal no. 732 of 2007)   Suresh Kumar, son of Sadhu Ram Resident of Village Dumara Tehsil and District Kaithal, Haryana                                Petitioner   versus   1. Indian … Continue reading

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI- frivolus litigation imposed heavy penalty for not complaining the decree=It is a typical example how a litigation proceeds and continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoers. 50. Learned Amicus articulated common man’s general impression about litigation in following words : “Make any false averment, conceal any fact, raise any plea, produce any false document, deny any genuine document, it will successfully stall the litigation, and in any case, delay the matter endlessly. The other party will be coerced into a settlement which will be profitable for me and the probability of the court ordering prosecution for perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident while crossing the road.”= It is well settled that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, goes on filing meritless petitions in different foras. Time and again Courts have held that if any litigant approaches the court of equity with unclean hands, suppress the material facts, make false averments in the petition and tries to mislead and hoodwink the judicial forums, then his petition should be thrown away at the threshold. Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party of the fruits of the decree must be dealt with heavy hands. A strong message is required to be sent to such type of litigants that this Commission is not helpless in such type of matters. 16. In Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904, Apex Court observed ; “Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forum only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law’s delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system.”

      NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI                                      FIRST APPEAL NO.502 OF 2011                                                  Alongwith                                      I.A. No.01 of 2011 (For stay)  (Against the order dated  11.11.2011 in E.A. No.25/2010 in CC No.80/2009  of the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh)     R. Narasimha Reddy, S/o R. Satyanarayana Reddy, R/o Flat No.102, Sphinix Apartments, Street No.1, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.                                                                     …..Appellant Vs.     1.      Kuchakula Surender Reddy, S/o Late K. Kantha Reddy, R/o … Continue reading

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI = Appellant’s case is that he suffered from polycystic kidney disease. In June 2003, he had to undergo dialysis since both of his kidneys stopped functioning. Both his elder brothers also suffered from the same disease and his sister was 67 years old, therefore they could not donate him a kidney. His wife suffers from scleroderma for the last 20 years and is 40% handicapped. His son was diagnosed as hydrocephalous and died on 8.4.08. His daughter is a minor. Since, he had no related donor, his dialysis continued for 2 years. One of his kidneys was removed, and as the second one also started deteriorating, he was advised kidney transplant. Appellant also got published an advertisement in the newspaper for a donor. Meanwhile, learning of his plight, his friend Raju Kushwaha, offered to donate his kidney.= Even on merits, appellant has no case as main allegation of appellant is that HLA test was done twice. However, there is no evidence to this effect on record. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that this test was done twice, it was in the interest of the appellant and if the Hospital to be on the safer side and to decrease the risk of transplant failure, has done the test twice, no harm can be said to have been caused to the appellant. 19. The second plea of appellant is that, no discharge certificate was given to him. This plea was raised by the appellant for the first time in its legal notice dated 6.2.2008. 20. Had discharge summary not given at the time of discharge, appellant would not have kept silent for about 3 years, that is, till the date of legal notice dated 6.2.2008. 21. Lastly, there is no force in the plea that there is delay in performing the kidney transplant. As per material available on record, letter given for permission to the respondent hospital was sent on 5.7.2005 and transplant was to be done within one month. If there had been some procedural delay, it cannot be said that delay amounted to any negligence on the part of the respondent. Admittedly, operation for kidney transplant was carried out successfully and there is no evidence that any excessive amount was charged or unnecessary tests were done. 22. We find no reason to disagree with the findings of the State Commission. 23. Present appeal is not maintainable, as the complaint was barred by limitation and even on merits appellant has no case. 24. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, with no order as to costs.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI                                    FIRST APPEAL NO.447 OF 2010  (Against the order dated  18.11.2010 in C.C. No.35/2008  of the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh) O.K. Gaur S/o Late Shri B.R. Gaur Age approx.. 57 years 4/21, Chhatrasal Nagar, Phase-2, Bhopal – 462 021 (Madhya Pradesh)                                                 ….…Appellant Vs. Choithram Hospital and Research Centre P.O. Box No. 131, Maanik Bag Road Indore – 452 014 (Madhya Pradesh)                                                 ….Respondent BEFORE: … Continue reading

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION=purchase of a vehicle on 19.2.1999 by one Shri Kedarnath Tewari/Complainant (since deceased). It was a R.T.V. Vehicle manufactured by M/s Hindustan Motors/OP-1, purchased from their authorized dealers Abhishek Motors, Rewa, MP/OP-3. The case of the Complainant was that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defects due to which it met with an accident on 17.3.1999. It was repaired by the dealer but, the Complainant allegedly refuse to take delivery of the vehicle. In a consumer complaint filed before District Forum, Rewa on 18.1.2000, the Complainant prayed for refund of Rs.3.5 lakhs with 18% interest or in the alternative, replacement of the exiting vehicle with a new one. The complaint was allowed and the District Forum directed the OPs to refund Rs.3.33 lakhs with 8% interest, together with Rs.25,000/- compensation and Rs 2500 costs.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CIRCUIT BENCH AT BHOPAL     REVISION PETITION NO. 3380 OF 2010 (Against the order dated  24.05.2010 in First Appeal No.1432/2010 & First Appeal No. 2138/ 2009 of the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh) Hindustan Motors Limited Having its Registered Office at: 9/1, R. N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata – 700 … Continue reading

“The only contention raised by opposite party No.1 in the counter and the evidence affidavit is that the complainant failed to furnish the necessary documents justifying his claim. We can not appreciate such a contention as nobody making a claim would remain silent without sending the copies of the documents justifying the claim arising out of the accident. In fact exhibit B10 relied on by the opposite parties 1 and 2 makes it clear that there was the claim by the complainant as early as on 7-12-2006. It is significant to note that opposite party No.1 himself filed exhibit B10. When the complainant made the claim, he would have definitely enclosed the necessary documents. Exhibit B10 discloses that along with the letter dated 7-12-2006 the complainant had also enclosed copy of the FIR, copy of the RC, copy of RTA permit, claim form, given by the opposite party No.3, and also the driver’s license. So opposite party No.1 cannot be permitted to say that the complainant had not enclosed the necessary documents.”

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 3657 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 28.07.2011 in FA No.611/2011 & FA No.1196/2009 of the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh) National Insurance Company Ltd. D.O.-I, P.B. No.236, Jhaveri Mansion, Bank Street, Hyderabad                                                                                    ……….Petitioner Versus   1. Mohd. Ishaq, S/o M.A. Hafiz, R/o. 9-4-77/A/149, A1- Hasnath Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad   2. NIC … Continue reading

MARUTHI CAR PURCHASED ON LOAN AND RENEWAL OF LOAN AGAIN – NOT COMES UNDER CONSUMER ACT=Adjustment of the loan by the Bank to which the Petitioner had aggrieved, is also beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the same (even it is presuming but not holding to be wrongfully done) cannot be agitated under the Consumer Protection Act as the same is money suit simplicitor between the parties. Under these circumstances, adjustment of amount due against the previous loan would not amount to deficiency in rendering any service

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI     REVISION PETITION No. 4155 of  2007 (From the Order dated 31.10.2007 in Appeal No. 322/07  of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh)     Ram Saran Malhotra R/o House No. 3261/1, Sector-41-D, Chandigarh                                                         …  Petitioner   VERSUS   1.      Sales Director, Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Anna Salai Post Office, … Continue reading

UNDER QUALITY IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION =the photographs produced by the complainant are sufficient to establish that the quality of the construction work is very poor. The technical report of the architect cannot be ignored on the ground that these are the words of the complainant. The report along with the photographs is sufficient to prove that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service, causing loss to the complainant. The plea that the opposite party had done the work as per the directions of Shri P. S. Raizada and Shri Pandey, the representatives of the complainant, is also not acceptable because these persons were authorised by the complainant for making timely payment to the opposite party, so that the work may not be stopped for want of funds. Nowhere in the agreement is it stated that these persons would also verify the quality of work. Therefore, we are of the view that the appeal filed by the opposite party is devoid of merit and hence it is liable to be dismissed.

        NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITIONS NO. 3643-3644 OF 2011 (From the order dated 22.03.2011 of Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun in First Appeals no. 78 and 83 of 2009)   Shambhu Paswan 215, Chandreshwar Nagar Hrishikesh                                                                         Petitioner District Dehradun Uttarakhand   versus   Shri Kuldeep Chandra Bhasin MIG – 61, Hrishikesh Colony Hrishikesh, District Dehradun                                             Respondent Uttarakhand   … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,341 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com