//
archives

State Commission

This tag is associated with 24 posts

Accident claim = when the drivers licence was not valid and was not renewed at the time of accident, petitioner is not entitled to 75% of the claim on non-standard basis and respondent has not committed any error in repudiating claim.

published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0013092511482503RP75-7613.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION                                                 NEW DELHI          REVISION PETITION NO. 75-76 OF 2013 (From the order dated 08.11.2012 in Appeal No. FA/12/95 & FA/12/98 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur) Alok Waghe S/o Shri S.D. Waghe R/o LIG, Tatibandh, Raipur, Ditrict Raipur (C.G.)                                                                   …Petitioner/Complainant Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through: Branch Manager, Shimangal Bhawan, Pandri Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)                                                               …Respondent/Opp. Party … Continue reading

No medical negligence – complainant died – Lrs not paid any attention – expert doctor died – = After administration of the above injection, cold blood was transfused in flagrant violation of the basic medical norm or practice and within 2/3 minutes of pushing the injection this cold blood transfusion instantly had a cascading effect on his wife and she developed convulsion-condition. According to the complainant on 15.02.97, the patient developed restlessness, insomania, severe pains all over her body and also breathing trouble. Complainant alleged that no care was taken by the Staff Nurse or the doctor and when on 16.02.97 he went to the Hospital his wife was groaning and crying. Complainant further alleged that on 16.2.97, the Duty Medical Officer without consulting Dr. R.N. Duttainstructed the nurse to inject two injections namely Fortwin I vial and Calmpose I vial to the Refractory Anemia patient in total disregard of all medical norms and ultimately his wife expired.= A perusal of the impugned order shows that the State Commission, while allowing the complaint, has placed substantial reliance upon the expert opinion of Dr. S.K. DuttaChaoudhary, produced on behalf of the Complainant. The Commission has observed that:- “In paragraphs 9,10,11 of his Affidavit (page 92 & 93 of the Paper Book) this expert doctor has opined that a person suffering from ailment or having low blood pressure on poor heart condition is never administered two medicines namely injection Calmpose and injection Fortwin and according to his opinion the Cardiac failure as recorded in the Death Certificate of the patient was directly due to the administration of the said two medicines in such a physical condition of the patient as has been already described above. The doctor has further stated that supporting treatment by way of Oxygen and Saline could have saved her. With this opinion of expert is added the circumstances that there is no record forthcoming from the O.Ps to show that the blood pressure or pulse rate of the patient was ever checked by Dr.Halder during his period of crisis before the fatal injection was administered. It is also on record that this Dr. Halder who was In-Charge did not requisition any Oxygen cylinder or mask or saline to save the life of the patient.” 4. However, during the course of hearing of this appeal, it was observed that the above medial expert examined on behalf of the Complainant before the State Commission had died before the OPs had any opportunity to cross examine him. It was therefore, decided to refer the matter to the All India Institute Medical Sciences, New Delhi for opinion. Accordingly, a four member Medical Board was constituted by the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS. Its report has been received and perused. = In another significant development during the hearing of this appeal, the Complainant Shri N.C. Majumdar passed away. The application to bring the LRs on record was allowed on 26.7.2012. However, notices sent to the LRs on 27.4.2011, 14.9.2011, 01.10.2012 and on 14.5.2013 have not yielded any results. They have remained unclaimed. It is learnt from the Registry that this amount was not withdrawn by the respondent/Complainant and is still available as deposit in the name of the Registrar of this Commission.- In the reference made by this Commission to the AIIMS, specific opinion had been sought on four points. The expert report received is directly with reference to those four points. They are listed below:- “Question (i). Whether the reaction/convulsion which the patient developed immediately after transfusion of blood on 13.02.97 is attributable to the transfusion of cold blood without bringing it to the level of normal human body temperature? Answer: There is no evidence of any reaction/convulsion on 13.02.1997 after the blood transfusion as per given medical record. Question (ii).Whether the reactions/convulsions which the patient developed after transfusion of blood on 15.02.97, were managed properly? Answer: There is no record of any convulsion on 15.02.1997. Patient had rigors (shivering) on 15.02.1997, which was managed accordingly. Question (iii). Whether the administration of injections, Calmpose and Fortwin on 16.02.97 was contra-indicative keeping in view the health condition, including the cardiac condition, of the patient ? Answer: Medical records do not mention any details of patient cardiac conditions. According to medical records inj. Fortwin & inj. Calmpose were administered intramuscularly (I/M) due to restlessness and pain. However, the reasons of restlessness and pain is difficult to assess from the medical record. Question (iv) Whether the death of the deceased on 16.02.97 is directly or indirectly attributable to the said complications which followed after blood transfusion on 13.02.97 and after administration of injections on 16.02.97. Answer: It seems unlikely that the blood transfusion on 13.02.1997 resulting in the event of death on 16.02.1997. It also seems unlikely that intramuscular (I/M) administration of Inj. Fortwin and Inj. Calmpose would have caused the cardio-respiratory arrest. Her primary condition of refractory anaemia is also not recorded properly in the medical recortds.” 7. The complaint petition before the State Commission itself accepts that the deceased was suffering from the condition of ‘refractive anaemia’. As per the medical lexicon, it is a condition of unresponsiveness to treatment. Considering this in the light of the opinion categorically expressed in the report of the AIIMS, the finding of State Commission that it was a case of gross negligence cannot be sustained. 8. Consequently, the appeal of Mission of Mercy Hospital/OP-1 before the State Commission is allowed and the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission in Consumer Complaint No.339/0/1997 is set aside, qua the appellant. The deposit of Rs.1 lakh made by the Appellant together with the accrued interest and the statutory amount of Rs.35,000/- are directed to be released in favour of the Appellant.

published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00130816122903619FA56506%20.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI       FIRST APPEAL NO. 565 OF 2006 (Against the order dated 06.06.2006 in S.C.Case No.339/O/1997 of the State Commission, West Bengal) The Mission of Mercy Hospital & Research Centre, 125/1, Park Street, Town of Calcutta, Calcutta-700017                                                                                                                                               …..Appellant Versus 1. Shri N.C.Majumder S/o Late Surendra Kumar Majumder Residing at 89, S.G.D.Road, Birati, Post Office –Birati, … Continue reading

Fire accident= When there is no clause not to make any constructions to the building with out permission – No claim should be rejected when fire accident was occurred due to short – circute – not concerned with building works = the petitioner issued an insurance policy number 201002/11/03/00372 called ‘Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy’ in favour of the complainant / respondent for a sum of Rs.20.50 lacs for the period 17.3.2004 to 16.03.2005. Out of this amount of Rs.20.50 lacs, Rs.20 lacs was meant for stocks of all kinds of sofa material, curtains cloth, mattresses, pillows, cushions, towels, bed sheets, etc., and Rs.50,000/- was the coverage for furniture, fixtures, fittings and electrical items. During the currency of the policy, fire occurred on 19.09.2004 at about 3:30 a.m. and the respondent estimated the loss to be Rs.20,68,090/-. An intimation was given by the respondent to the local police on the date of the fire and the insurance company was also intimated. The petitioner insurance company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. Vide his report dated 29.01.2005, the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.10,80,770/-. The surveyor also pointed out that at the time of loss, there was construction going on in the shop on the first and second floors of the building. In order to supply electric current to first and second floor, electric wires had been put on the main electric meter for the shop, which resulted in probable short-circuiting, leading to fire. The petitioner repudiated the claim, saying that there was violation of conditions of the policy, because construction was going on in the premises. = construction activity was being carried out at the premises in question and as per the surveyor’s report, the probable cause of fire could be due to short-circuiting, but we agree with the findings of the District Forum and State Commission that in this case also, the insurance company cannot escape responsibility to pay the claim under the Policy. We do not agree with the contention of the petitioner that the construction activity had resulted in increased risk for the insured stocks in question. It has also been made clear that there are separate electric connections for the ground floor and first floor and there are separate electricity meters for the same. It is not clear anywhere that the insured was required to obtain permission of the insurance company before starting the construction. The District Forum in their order have rightly assessed the value of the total stocks, in question and the value of the stocks lying safe in the godown, and allowed the claim after taking into consideration both these values. We, therefore, find no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission which reflect true appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record. These orders are, therefore, upheld and the present revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00130807112019251RP23812012.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 2381 OF 2012 (From the order dated 30.03.2012 in First Appeal No. 970/2008 of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)   United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. & Head Office 24, Whites Road Chennai – 600014 Through its Regional office No. 1 Kanchenjunga Building … Continue reading

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 193 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL – REFUSED AS THE APPLICANT FAILED TO PROVE THE ALLEGATION THAT HIS COUNSEL NOT INTIMATED = It is surprising to note that the application does not mention the name of the earlier counsel. There is nothing on record to show that any complaint has been filed before the Bar Council or any legal notice was served upon earlier counsel. There is also nothing on record to show that petitioners have initiated any action against their earlier counsel for deficiency in services, under the Act. Affidavit of earlier counsel also did not see the light of the day. The petitioners are supposed to explain the ‘day-to-day’ delay but the needful was not done. Such like stories can be created at any time. To our mind, in such like cases, false allegations are often made against the counsel so that the delay should be condoned. It is the duty cast on the petitioners themselves to find out as to what has happened to their case and why appeal has not been filed. They cannot put entire blame upon their counsel. The facts of this case rather reveal negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioners themselves. – It is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se. Negligence of a litigant’s agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

published in  http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/001306101 14937239RP20512013.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION  PETITION  NO.   2051    OF   2013 with  I.A. No.3375 of 2013 (Stay Application)  (From the order dated  25.3.2013  First Appeal No.193/2013   of the State Commission,  Haryana, Panchkula)   1.       DLF Home Developers Limited DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 2.       Shri Atul Srivastava, S/o Shri H.C. Srivastava, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi … Continue reading

Complainant/respondent submitted application for sanction of loan to OP/petitioner and deposited Rs.39,326/- as process fee. Loan was not disbursed to the complainant; hence, complainant served notice on the OP for refund of process fee, but OP did not refund process fee. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP filed complaint before District Forum. Respondent/OP did not appear before District Forum. During pendency of complaint, OP refunded Rs.39,326/- to the complainant. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant allowed complaint and directed OP to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.39,326/- from 5.10.2007 till date of payment and further awarded Rs.11,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. = Perusal of record reveals that as per Annexure P-5, loan was sanctioned by the petitioner, but disbursement of loan was subject to certain conditions, as mentioned in sanction letter. It appears that respondent did not avail loan facility due to technical difficulty as mentioned by respondent in letter dated 16.5.2010. Thus, it becomes clear that there was no deficiency on the part of petitioner. After filing of the complaint, process fee though non-refundable was refunded by the petitioner to the respondent and respondent vide Annexure P-7 dated 16.5.2010 apprised petitioner that now respondent has no grievance and he assured to withdraw all legal proceedings, which he has filed, meaning thereby, it was obligatory on the part of respondent to withdraw complaint filed before District Forum after receiving process fee. It appears that respondent has not acted with clean hands before District Forum. He has also mentioned wrong fact that loan was not sanctioned.- Once the respondent received process fee in full and final satisfaction, he should have withdrawn complaint as assured and he was not entitled to receive any interest on that amount as well compensation and cost as apparently there was no deficiency on the part of petitioner

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI     REVISION PETITION NO. 4797 of 2012 (From the order dated 14.09.2012 in Appeal No. 158/2012 of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur)     I.D.B.I. Bank D-24, Durlabh Niwas, Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan through Branch Manager             …   Petitioner/Opp. Party (OP) Versus 1. Subhash Shah S/o Om Prakash Shah R/o B-5, Hari Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sarika Shah W/o Subhash Shah R/o B-5, Hari Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, … Continue reading

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – The State Commission, therefore, directed the Appellants to jointly and severally pay the Respondent (i) Rs.77,023/- towards expenditure upto 30.05.2001; (ii) Rs.70,000/- as damages; and (iii) Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs within a period of 45 days from the date of the communication of the order.- It is an admitted fact that the Respondent was admitted for gallbladder surgery in Appellant/Institute and as a part of the anesthesia procedure a cylindrical pipe was inserted inside his throat and since it could not be placed in the desired position despite several attempts, the operation had to be abandoned. It was later confirmed that the intubation was unsuccessful because of a jutting cartilage inside the throat which was a pre-existing structural problem in the Respondent’s throat. = it was for the Appellants as medical professionals to have got all the tests done and once there was a problem with the intubation, they should not have made repeated attempts to thrust the pipe, which resulted in serious injuries leading to other complications. – the Respondent had developed a life threatening condition because of the pharyngeal tear close to larynx and multiple air filled cavity in Appellant No.1/Institute – the due and reasonable care was not taken by the Appellants in the treatment of the Respondent while intubating the cylindrical pipe in connection with the anesthesia. While the problem was apparently caused because of a structural defect in the Respondent’s throat, severe damage could have been averted or minimized if the Appellants had been more sensitive and careful and not insisted in pushing the tube several times despite knowing that there were problems. There is no other explanation for the extensive and severe injuries caused inside the Respondent’s throat. We are also unable to accept the contention of the Appellants that the onus was on the Respondent to have disclosed the relevant facts regarding structural defects since there is no evidence that he was aware of this problem. If indeed he had been aware, there was no reason for him to have withheld this fact.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2009 (Against the order dated 16.02.2009 in SC Case No. 100/O/2001 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata)   1. ILS Hospital Previously known as Institute of Laparoscopic Surgery Jeewansatya, DD-6 Salt Lake City, Sector-1 Kolkata-700064 2. Dr. Om Tantia Director … Continue reading

registration of the car stood in the name of Anil Kumar and petitioner after purchasing vehicle got it insured in his own name without transfer of registration certificate in his name. – not entitled to claim insurance = Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 provides as under: ”50(1)(b) The transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration”. 7. As per this provision, the petitioner was bound to get the registration certificate transferred in his name and intimate to the insurance company but as the petitioner failed to get it transferred in his name within specified period, petitioner was not entitled to get any compensation only on the ground that policy existed in his name. At the time of taking policy, petitioner had no insurable interest in the vehicle and respondent/OP has not committed any error in repudiating claim. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint filed by the petitioner. We find no infirmity, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION                                                 NEW DELHI             REVISION PETITION NO. 64 OF 2013  (From the order dated 10.10.2012 in Appeal No.876/2012 of the Haryana  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) D.P. Srivastava S/o Late Sh. Keshava Prasad Srivastava C1/102, Mayfair Tower Charmwood Village, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad – 121 009, Haryana                      …               Petitioner/Complainant Versus M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot No.60, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase II Opp. SBI Bank, New Delhi … Continue reading

the Bank had failed to insure the property.=The State Commission was also informed that in all cases of house loan advanced in Tiruchirapalli by the OP/Bank, during 2003-09 period, the bank itself had insured all houses. In none of the cases, premium was directly paid to the insurance company by the borrower. Clause 13 in the loan agreement needs to be viewed in this background. Had the OP/Bank acted with promptitude and insured the house in time, the benefit of insurance would have been available when the floods came and damaged it. This lapse was further compounded by belated effort on the part of the Bank to ensure it, at the cost of the complainant. The State Commission has therefore rightly held it to be a case of deficiency of service.- the decision of the Tamilnadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 194 of 2011 is bases on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. There is no case for intervention by this Commission in exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is therefore dismissed and the impugned order is confirmed. Further, considering the conduct of the revision petitioner an additional cost of Rs 25,000 is awarded to the respondent/complainant. The same shall be paid by the revision petitioner within three months. Failing this, the amount shall carry interest at 9% for the period of delay.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO.4645 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 24.07.2012 in First Appeal No.194/2011 of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu)   1. The Chairman Indian Bank Chennai   2. The Manager Indian Bank, Thillai Nagar, 10th Cross, Tiruchirapalli- 18                                                                                                                                       ……….Petitioners     Versus 1. Consumer Protection Council Tamilnadu, No.2, RMS Building, … Continue reading

consumer under Section 2 (d) of the C.P. Act. = complainant hired architectural and structural consultancy of the petitioner/OP for renovation and extension of the Himmatgarh Palace Hotel complex at Jaisalmer. This service was to be provided in two stages, namely; conceptual stage and schematic stage. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,30,600/- as consultancy fee to the opposite party but as conceptual design was not complete, complainant filed complaint for refund of fee along with compensation and cost of litigation. OP/respondent filed written statement and submitted that complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, hence, complaint may be dismissed.= hotel was to be developed for self-employment which argument cannot be accepted because, firstly, no averment has been made in the complaint that services were availed for earning livelihood by means of self-employment and secondly complainant being branch of Thar Hotels (P) Ltd.,Jaisalmer, this business cannot come within the purview of business for earning livelihood by means of self-employment. In such circumstances, complainant/respondent does not fall within the purview of consumer under Section 2 (d) of the C.P. Act. Complaint was not maintainable before District Forum and learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing complaint, though, on other grounds and learned State Commission has committed error in partly allowing the complaint and petition is liable to be accepted. 7. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent is allowed and impugned order dated 13.4.2011 passed by the learned State Commission is set aside and complaint is dismissed. Complainant/respondent may initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of fees, etc. before any other Forum/Civil Court. Parties to bear their own cost.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION                                                 NEW DELHI           REVISION PETITION NO. 1660  OF 2011 (From the order dated 13.04.2011 in Appeal No.610/08 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur)   Abhikram, Through its Partner Mr. Nimish Patel, Amrit-Lila Bungalow, Off Nagari Hospital Road, Near Gujarat College, Ahmedabad – 380 006                                             …        Petitioner/OP   Versus   Hotel Himmatgarh Palace, through Col. Mansingh Managing Director, Thar Hotel (P) Ltd., Jaisalmer – 345 … Continue reading

The visa card carried a personal accident cover, with risk coverage of Rs.4 lakhs.= even though the visa card was issued, however till declaration of assignment was not filled in, the deceased cannot be regarded as their customer. Therefore the question of payment of any amount does not arise. ? = it is clearly stated that the card issued only with personal accident benefit and he is entitled to the amount for an accident on road or in air travel. Therefore on reading the instruction under “Insurance benefit on you card” it cannot be said that the benefit commences only after filling of declaration of assignment. The evidence put before us do not show that such a condition was put forth by the opponent that the benefit under the card will not be available unless declaration cum undertaking was filled in.”

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI     REVISION PETITION NO. 1902 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 16.09.2010 in  Appeal No.1297/2006 of the State Commission, Gujarat)   Standard Chartered Bank 5th Floor, Sakar -3, Income Tax, Ashram Road Ahmedabad                                                                                                                                             ……….Petitioner   Versus Mr. Naran Bhai ShamjiBhai Bhandari R/o Tarwade, TA Distt. Amreli, Ahmedabad, Gujarat                                                                                                                                  …..Respondent     BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE  J. M. MALIK,                               PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,187 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com