//
archives

suresh chandra

This tag is associated with 16 posts

Not granted – in her application of 18.06.2001to the LIC, the complainant had categorically stated that her husband had committed suicide by drowning on 04.05.2001. In the inquest memorandum drawn up by the Police on the same day after recovery of the dead body, it was also stated that it appeared to be a case of suicide. In the form of requisition for autopsy of the body of the deceased, a similar remark was made. However, for the first time on 16.07.2001, the petitioner/complainant made a belated statement in her letter addressed to the LIC that her husband had died of accident and it was not a case of suicide.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 636 OF 2007 (From the order dated 21.11.2006 of Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in First Appeal No.2252/2004)   Smt. Kamalesh Bansal W/o Late Dinesh Chand Bansal                                             Petitioner R/o Donaoli, Lashkar, Gwalior   versus   1. Senior Zonal Manager Life Insurance Corporation … Continue reading

First, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner the order dated 20.10.2010 of the District Forum dismissing the interim application for bringing the legal representatives of Chandrappa on record and holding that after the death of Chandrappa the cause of action had been extinguished was not challenged by the respondent (legal representative) and hence attained finality qua the legal representative. Secondly, the complaint itself having abated with the cause of action with the complainant having died during the pendency of the complaint proceedings, the right to sue the petitioners for “personal injury” allegedly suffered by the complainant also did not survive. This is abundantly clear from the detailed discussion in the order of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case (particularly, paragraph 9). 8. The view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Mukesh Kumari (Minior and Dead) by LRs v M. Lal Oswal Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and Another was, in our respectful opinion, applicable to the specific facts and circumstances of that case and the observation, “Even otherwise the complaint was for compensation for medical negligence. In such a complaint the right to sue would survive in the legal heirs who would then be entitled to compensation” would not, therefore, have general applicability as sought to be claimed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the revision petition and set aside the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum. Needless to add, both the complaints are also dismissed as not being maintainable after the death of the patient H.B. Chandrappa. The parties shall bear their own costs.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 2702 of 2011 (From the order dated 04.07.2011 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in RP no. 12 of 2011) 1. Malnad Hospital and Institute of Oncology Super Specialty Surgical Centre, 9th Mile Bus Stop, B. H. Road P.O. Nidige, Shimoga – 577 … Continue reading

Medical Negligence – The facts of this case speak for themselves. The patient was admitted on 5.12.2004. His several Tests were conducted. The petitioner could not show to the Commission that the patient had already got the liver injury before his admission into his hospital. It is not denied that the petitioner inserted pipe on 5.12.2004 and again on 13.12.2004 after removing the old pipe. The condition of patient deteriorated with the insertion of second pipe. As a matter of fact, it was a case of accident and the physician should not have taken a step forward without consulting a surgeon.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI      REVISION PETITION NO.  1543  OF  2012  (Against the order dated 21.10.2011 in Appeal No. 874/2008 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula) Dr. Rajiv Gupta (Incharge) Amrat Dhara Hospital, Chaura Bazar, Karnal Haryana Versus   1. Sukhbir Singh Son of Sh. Tula Ram Village Subhri Post Office … Continue reading

Unfortunately, on 25th July 2003, around 4.0 A.M., there was a strong storm and heavy rain-fall due to which the roof of Rice Mill collapsed and the water entered into the Rice Mill due to which the raw material, furnished stock, machinery, tin shed and other articles got damagedwhether the complainant/petitioner after accepting the amount in the sum of Rs. 3,27,000/- as full and final settlement is entitled to have the residue amount claimed in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- at the initial stage? It is note-worthy that the petitioner has not set up the plea of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or coercion in his pleadings. In the case of “United India Insurance versus Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. [II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC) the apex court was pleased to hold: -, “4. ………………… The mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim with respect to the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered. Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the consumer may be in a position to satisfy the Tribunal or the Commission under the Act that such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from him under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise or undue influence or by mis-representation or the like. If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, mis-representation, under influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting the appropriate relief under the circumstances of each case. The mere execution of the discharge voucher and acceptance of the insurance claim would not estopple insured from making further claim from the insurer but only under the circumstances as noticed earlier. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and Commissions constituted under the Act shall also have the power to fasten liability against the Insurance Companies notwithstanding the insurance of the discharge voucher. Such a claim cannot be termed to be fastening the liability against the Insurance Companies over and above the liabilities payable under the contract of insurance envisaged in the policy of insurance. The claim preferred regarding the deficiency of service shall be deemed to be based upon the insurance policy, being covered by the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. 5. In the instant cases the discharge vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily and the complainants had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence, mis-representation or the lie. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the State Commision was justified in dismissing their complaints…………………………” 10. This view was also followed in a case reported in the case of “Raj Kumar versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [III (2011) CPJ 354 (NC)]” 11. It is also difficult to fathom as to why the first letter was written 10-11 months, thereafter, this objection was never taken at the earliest possible opportunity. 12. The learned State Commission rightly held that the original complaint filed by the petitioner was barred by time. The same was filed on 20th January 2007 i.e. two years 11 months and 10 days after cheque of Rs. 3,27,230/- had been issued and accepted by the complainant. The petition is without merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES RERESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 3689 OF 2009  (From the order dated 24.07.2009 in Appeal No. 2065/2008 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh) M/s Shiv Ram Gramodyog Sansthan                          …  Petitioner Through its Secretary Shivanant Agrahari Basaipur Distric Chandauli U.P.   Versus   1.  United India Insurance Co. Ltd.                             …  Respondents Thorugh … Continue reading

Electricity not supplied properly with full energy caused business loss to the factory and claimed loss at Rs.4 lakhas and odd. District forum dismissed. State forum granted 2 lakhas and others. Their Lordship partly allowed the revision partly removing other expenses- The grouse of the complainants is that they did not get the full electricity and the electricity supplied to them was inadequate and insufficient to run the factory. However, thereafter, the request of the complainants was acceded and the full electricity was given after 02-02-2000. The complainants hired generator to run some of the machines to cope with the urgent supply orders. In the complaint it is submitted that they have suffered a loss of Rs.4,98,024/-. = The petitioner himself admits that the electricity supply of the premises of the complainants remain uninterrupted as alternate measure was made for supply of electricity. It was also not denied that the complainants had to hire another generator. Respondents/complainants have claimed hire charges at Rs.26,500/-, repairing charges of generator at Rs.28,500/- and amount spent on purchase of diesel oil, lubricants, etc. at Rs.2,46,378.78/- and refund of electric charges from the period starting from November, 1999 to January, 2000 to the tune of Rs.67,831/- and business loss in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, total being Rs.4,98,024/-. 7. The finding recorded by the State Commission that the complainants are also entitled to refund of an amount of Rs.67,831/- charged from them as minimum electric charges for the months from November, 1999 to January, 2000 with interest @ 6% p.a. appears to be not correct. The affidavit filed byShri S.S. Rawat, Sub Divisional Officer stating that the complainants consumed 18240 units remains unrebutted on the record. No effort was made to scrub this document of paramount importance. It is, thus, clear that the complainants have used those units as mentioned in the affidavit. They are not supposed to enjoy such a huge units of electricity free of costs. Consequently, we find that the appellants are entitled to charge for those units. 8. Consequently we partly accept the appeal. The petitioner – DHBVNL will not return the above said amount of Rs.67,831/- nor will it pay the interest in the sum of 6%. To that extent the petition stands allowed. However, we find no illegality or infirmity with the order passed in respect of the compensation amount to Rs. 2 lakhs and interest imposed thereon. To that extent, the petition stands dismissed. No costs.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI      REVISION PETITION NO. 4680  OF  2009 (Against the order dated 10-09-2009 in RBT No. 1580/2008 in Appeal No. 1813/2002 of the State Commission, UT Chandigarh)   Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through its Supdt. Engineer Operation Division, Sector-23 Faridabad, Haryana   The Executive Engineer Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Operation Division, Sector-23 Faridabad, Haryan   The SDO(Operation) Sub … Continue reading

HUDA failed to develop and provide basic amenities by the date of delivery. The district forum granted interest on deposited amount and costs and State commission also confirmed the same.This revision also holds no meritsThe petitioner received possession in December, 2001. The complaint was filed within two years on 07-10-2003. The cause of action arose only after getting the possession. This is an admitted fact that the essential amenities were not complete. The learned State Commission has noted that from the letter bearing memo no. 492 dated 09-04-1999, written by the Estate Officer, HUDA to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Division, HUDA, Hisar, it stands clear on record that at the time of offer of possession, the development work did not complete. The petitioner has failed to prove no evidence which may go to show that the work stood completed on or before the possession was handed over to the respondents.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI    REVISION PETITION NO.  4122  OF  2009  (Against the order dated 28-07-2009 in Appeal No. 815/2009 of the State Commission, Haryana) 1.    HUDA through its Estate Officer, Bhiwani   2.    H.U.D.A. through Its Administrator, HUDA, Hisar   3.    Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula   4.    XEN, Electricity Division HUDA, Hisar   5.    The J.E. Estate Officer, HUDA, Bhiwani   6.    The XEN, HUDA, Division No. … Continue reading

An Ayurveda doctor treated the patient in allopathic stream and caused the death of patient at the hands of compound er who administered salain bottle when the patient received Heart Attact.directed to pay compensation of Rs.7 lakhs.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI    REVISION PETITION NO.  887  OF  2012 WITH I.A./1/2012(For stay)  (Against the order dated 24-11-2011 in Appeal No. A/11/454 of the State Commission, Maharashtra) Dr. R.R. Singh AVV (BOM) Regn. No. 12089 Varadan Clinic Near Pal School, Hanuman Nagar Akruli Road, Kandivali, East Mumbai – 4001010 Mumbai, Maharashtra                                              …….. Petitioner (s)                          Vs.   Pratibha P. Gamre Jeemala Chawl Hanuman Nagar Opp. … 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

5. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the documents produced on record. It is obvious from its very title that the Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy was limited to deaths, permanent disablement, etc., of the covered employees of the HPSEB, arising out of their “personal accident”. In other words, natural death of a daily-wage employee at his home was outside the coverage of the insurance scheme. What the State Commission has done is to read the word “Death” in isolation of the rest of the letter dated 20.02.1996 of the Secretary, HPSEB conveying the details of the scheme. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Sharma, the complainant herself has stated that the death of her husband was from natural causes, at this home and thereafter, she had been employed as a daily-wage worker by the Board in one of its offices. In other words, the Board has discharged its duties as a compassionate employer. However, even if it had not done so, the petitioner Board could not, by any reckoning, be held responsible for payment of the insurance amount to the complainant because her husband’s death was due to natural causes. Likewise, the death being “natural”, the insurance company was also not liable to pay the amount insured even if the delay in reporting the death/making the claim were to be overlooked/condoned.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION No. 512 of 2007 (From the order dated 08.11.2006 of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in Appeal no. 18 of 2006) 1.  Executive Engineer, Transmission Division H. P. State Electricity Board, Bilaspur, H.P. 2.  Executive Engineer, Maintenance Division H.P. State Electricity Board Shimla – 171 004, … Continue reading

National consumer disputes redressal coammission =contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and as such the question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage arise.fire accident claim of damage.

  NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   NEW DELHI                                                   REVISION PETITION NO. 4506 OF  2010 (From the order dated 09.09.2010 in Appeal No.239/08 of Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi)     Ashish Vishwakarma of M/s. Ashish Constructions Ranchi Patna Road P.O. Barhi District Hazaribagh                                       …      Petitioner         Vs   1. Branch Manager     National Insurance Co. Ltd.     Ranchi-Patna Road     Post & District Hazaribagh   2. Branch Manager … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,468 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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