In present facts of the case, the Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 14.12.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’).
In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) have refused to condone the delay for 125 days as no ‘sufficient cause’ was shown because there was difference in oral submissions and the contents of the Application submitted.
In present facts of the case, the Complaint of the patient was dismissed and it was observed that it is natural that if any patient consults with a doctor, then he would inform about all alternative modes of treatment.
In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC) have allowed the Revision Petition in favour of the Complainant as medical negligence of the doctor was established as the Complainant was able to discharge its initial burden of proof.
In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC) allowed the Revision Petition on the basis of ‘medical negligence’ as the Government Guidelines issued by Ministry of Health pertaining to Swine Flu was not followed properly which have resulted into death of the patient.
In present facts of the case, it was observed that ‘the purposes of earning livelihood by means of self-employment’, has been excluded from the purview of ‘commercial purpose’ as such purchase of commercial goods for earning livelihood by means of self-employment, will not exclude such a buyer from the purview of the “consumer”.
In present facts of the case, it was held by the National Commission that Consumer Protection Act being a beneficial legislation, benefit of ambiguity/doubt needs to go to the Consumer.
In present facts of the case, while relying upon the Judgment of Supreme Court it was held that auction purchaser could not be held to be a ‘consumer’ and the lower for a do not have Jurisdiction to entertain issues pertaining to auction.
Neeraj Chowdhary Vs BPTP Ltd. (NCDRC Delhi) In a significant ruling, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, has delivered a judgment in the case of Neeraj Chowdhary Vs BPTP Ltd., bringing relief to a group of home buyers who had been grappling with delays and uncertainties in the completion of their residential project. The […]
In present facts of the case, the National Commission while relying upon the RBI Circular dated July 6, 2017 observed that there will be zero liability of a customer where the unauthorized transaction occurs in events involving contributory negligence on the part of the Bank and have accordingly allowed the Petition.
