Corporate Law : In the present case, entry by the culprits was by removal of roof sheet which cannot be done without use of force. Hence, it would...
Corporate Law : The Builder will have to refund the amount with interest to Homebuyer if possession of the flat is not given on time. Jaypee Build...
Corporate Law : The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ordered to refund of the full amount paid by five homebuyers in a ...
Corporate Law : Compensation by its very nature, had to be just. For suffering, no part of which was the claimant-appellant’s own fault, she had...
Corporate Law : In Rajeev Chaturvedi vs. Commissioner case, Rajasthan High Court rules Article 227 writ petition not applicable for NCDRC orders. ...
Corporate Law : In present facts of the case, the National Commission observed that where the Final Surveyor’s Report credibility becomes doubtf...
Corporate Law : In present facts of the case, the National Commission allowed the Revision Petition filed by the Complainant by making observation...
Corporate Law : In present facts of the case, the Revision Petition have been filed by the Petitioner – LIC against Respondents under section 21...
In present facts of the case, the revision petition was filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 assailing the order dated 11.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur.
In present facts of the case, it was held that findings of State Commission that the patient and his family members were not informed about the risk nor their consent was obtained, do not suffer from any illegality as procedure/risk was explained to the patient.
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.
