Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 21 – NCDRC’s revisional powers are very limited. The Section provides power to call for the records from the State Commission and to set aside its order issued sans jurisdiction vested in it by law or if the State Commission failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or if the …
Eggshell Skull Rule– It is a common law doctrine that makes a defendant liable for the plaintiff’s unforeseeable and uncommon reactions to the defendant’s negligent or intentional tort. In simple terms, a person who has an eggshell skull is one who would be more severely impacted by an act, which an otherwise “normal person” would …
Jyoti Devi vs Suket Hospital 2024 INSC 330 – Medical Negligence – Eggshell Skull Rule Read More »
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 –Legal implications of a promotional trailer, popularly known as a ‘promo’, or a teaser that is circulated before the release of a movie- Whether it create any contractual relationship or obligations akin to it? Is it an unfair trade practice if the contents of the promotional trailer are not shown in …
Summary: Disposing appeal against NCDRC order allowing Consumer Complaint, SC observed- Developer failed to handover the possession of the flat to the appellants-homebuyers by the scheduled date i.e. 16th March, 2014 upon which the consumer dispute came to be registered- Commission erred in directing that the opposite party i.e. respondent-developer shall be entitled to charge …
Sanjay Chaudhary vs Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd 2024 INSC 300 – Consumer Read More »
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Commercial disputes cannot be decided in summary proceeding under the 1986 Act [In this case, complainant was for deriving benefit by getting an interest on the same at the rate of 18 % per annum, therefore, it would be an investment for profit/gain] Partnership – Legal heirs of a deceased …
Annapurna B Uppin vs Malsiddappa 2024 INSC 276 – Consumer – Partnership Read More »
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ; Section 2(1)(m)- Whether a company or body corporate was not covered under the definition of a ‘person’ under the Act of 1986? The definition of ‘person’ as provided in the Act of 1986 is inclusive and not exhaustive. Consumer Protection Act being a beneficial legislation, a liberal interpretation has to …
Medical Negligence –In cases of deficiency of medical services, duty of care does not end with surgery -While the report of the Medical Council can be relevant for determining deficiency of service before a consumer forum, it cannot be determinative, especially when it contradicts the evidentiary findings made by a consumer forum. In these circumstances, …
Najrul Seikh vs Dr Sumit Banerjee 2024 INSC 184 – Consumer Cases – Medical Negligence Read More »
Summary: NCDRC dismissed a complaint filed against bank holding that the appellant -complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 11.01.2006, while the respondent bank was bound by various instructions of the Reserve Bank of India at the time of signing the agreement – Dismissing Appeal, SC held: NBFC and as …
Medical Negligence – NCDRC upheld the compensation awarded by the DCDRC to the complainant (Rupees Two Lakhs) – However, the interest @ 12% was held to be excessive and accordingly, the same was reduced to 6% – Allowing appeal, SC directed that the appellant P.C. Jain shall be entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 2 …
PC Jain vs Dr. RP Singh 2024 INSC 67 – Consumer Complaint – Medical Negligence Read More »
Under the old Consumer Protection Act of 1986, originally Consumer Commissions had no power to review. Vide an amendment in the year 2002, the power of review was given to National Commission only. The District Forums and the State Commissions were not given similar powers.[Read Rajeev Hitendra Pathak vs. Achyut Kashinath 2011 (9) SCC 541 …