Submit your Complaint
mail@consumerredressal.com
 

Submit Complaint

Helpline Number

  +91 70657 60003

Email Address

  mail@consumerredressal.com

January 2013

 

 

 

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. vs. Syed Mahaboob Ali, dated 2013-01-04
Facts in brief are that respondents/complainants purchased TATA Ace Autos which have been financed by the petitioners/OP, by hypothecating their vehicles. Petitioners seized the vehicle without any intimation. Accordingly, respondents filed complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II Vijayawada, (for short, ‘District Forum’). read more +


Andhra Bank, vs. Vajrala Venkata Reddy, dated 2013-01-03
These three revision petitions have been filed by Andhra Bank against three separate orders of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in distinct appeals. Although, the details of loan transaction are distinct in each case, the issue involved in all the three cases is identical. The three revisions are therefore taken up together for consideration in this common order. read more +

Sh. Mahesh Prasad Aggarwal vs. M/s. Kamayani Patients Care India Ltd. dated 2013-01-03
Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant no. 1 is father of deceased, Rajeev Aggarwal, complainant no. 2 is wife of deceased Rajeev Aggarwal and complainant nos 3 to 5 are minor daughters and son of deceased Rajeev Aggarwal. Father Rajeev Aggarwal aged 41 years met with an accident while he was proceeding towards Agra as his vehicle overturned and he sustained multiple serious injuries and became unconscious. He was immediately taken to opposite party-hospital at Secundra, Agra where he was admitted and Rs.1200/- were charged for C.T. Scan of head, Rs.300/- for X-ray chest and wrist, Rs.600/- as OT charges, Rs.500/- as emergency charges and Rs.500/- as Doctors examination fee. Rajeev Aggarwal was plastered in left hand and he was discharged and was informed that he is alright. He was not given documents of discharge. Rajeev Aggarwal was complaining of serious headache and pain at back but no treatment regarding aforesaid pain was given to Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal while he was in opposite party-hospital. Rajeev Aggarwal was taken to the house, though, his legs and hands were not moving properly besides suffering from severe pain in head and back. Elderly persons of his family advised to shift Rajeev Aggarwal to good hospital in Delhi and for this purpose ambulance was hired on 15.10.2001 and proceeded for Delhi but Rajeev Aggarwal collapsed after he travelled about 20 kms on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Complainants contacted opposite party-hospital to supply entire medical record but opposite party-hospital refused. From post mortem report it was revealed that the deceased had fracture of left partial bone and there was evidence of haematoma of left side of the brain and even the membranes were found congested. 100 ml. free clotted blood was also found in the brain. Opposite party-hospital neither operated nor advised operation and on account of negligence of opposite party-doctors, Rajeev Aggarwal succumbed to death. The deceased, Rajeev Aggarwal was tee-totaller having good health and earning about 3 lakhs per annum and was also assessed to income tax. The deceased last assessed income was Rs.3,35,332/-. There is longevity of life in the family of the deceased as his father about 75 years old is alive, hence, complainant may be awarded Rs.30 lakhs as compensation along with 18% p.a interest. read more +

Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors vs. Chaitanya Das, Advocate & Ors dated 2013-01-02
The facts as seen from the record, relate to a Jeevan Shree life insurance policy taken by the Complainant Chaitanya Das (respondent No.1 in the present proceeding) in 2001. Allegedly, it was represented by the agent of the insurance company (OP-3/respondent No.2 in the present proceedings) that the quarterly premia had to be paid for 11 years and the policy itself would mature in 16 years. However, when the policy document was received, the Complainant discovered that the policy was to mature on completion of 25 years and not 16. This was not acceptable to the Complainant and he sought refund of the entire amount paid by him. Despite oral assurances, no payment was received and hence the complaint before the District Forum. By 26.11.2002, the Complainant had paid a total of Rs.38,000/- being five instalments of the premium. Thereafter, no further premia were paid. read more +

Dinesh Chandra Tiwari vs. M/s. Raj Laxmi Welding Works, dated 2013-01-02
Shri Dinesh Chandra Tiwari has filed this revision petition against concurrent orders of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Udaipur in CC No.67 of 2009 and the order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.53 of 2011. The revision petition has been filed with several deficiencies. He was given time to by the Registry on five different occasions between 9.12.2011 and 27.8.2012, for rectification. When the matter was finally heard on 24.9.2012, some of the defects pointed out by the Registry, including non-filing of a copy of the complaint petition, had remained unattended. Nevertheless, the Complainant was heard in person. read more +

M/s. Packer Sea Food (Pvt) Limited vs. The Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. dated 2013-01-02
The case of the Complainant is that the loan was sanctioned on 20.10.1993 but only Rs.15.3 lakhs had been disbursed till 18.3.1994. By the time the complaint was filed, only Rs.44.83 lakhs had been released and remaining balance of Rs.25.17 lakhs and subsidy were never released. This was inspite of the fact that the Principal, Govt. College of Engineering, Tirunelveli, appointed by the OPs to evaluate the plant and machinery, had reported that the building was worth Rs.41.58 lakhs, excluding cost of the land. read more +

 

Smt. Sheela Wanti & Ors vs. State Bank of India, & Ors dated 2013-01-09
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Complainants/Appellants had a joint saving bank account No. 45656 with the Respondent No.1 Bank (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent’). On 02.06.97, Appellant No.1 deposited with the Respondent Bank an Account Payee Demand Draft No.400564 (000892) dated 29.05.97 in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- payable at Canara Bank, New Delhi [Branch code No.1745]. Presuming that the amount of the said demand draft would be credited in their account within 3-4 days, Appellants requested the Respondent Bank on 17.6.97 to issue a demand draft in favour of HUDA for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. The said request was declined by the Respondent for want of sufficient balance. The demand draft was obtained only after depositing a sum of Rs.200/- in cash to make up the existing balance for issuance of the draft. On verbal enquiry, Appellants were informed by the Respondent Bank that the demand draft of Rs.4,00,000/- deposited by them on 2nd June, 1997 had been misplaced. Despite repeated requests made by the Appellants, Respondent failed to trace the demand draft or credit the amount of the demand draft to the their account. Complainants, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission seeking a direction to the Respondent Bank to pay the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- being the value of the demand draft and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with cost of litigation. read more +

Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority vs. Shri D.K. Sharma dated 2013-01-09
The Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority (HIMUDA) has filed this revision petition against concurrent orders of the Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Bilaspur District and the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The complaint of Sri D.K. Sharma and another, seeking refund of excess price charged for the flat allotted to him has been allowed by both. As per the Complainant, the flat in Strawberry Hills, Phase-III Housing Colony constructed by the revision petitioner/HIMUDA, was allotted to him on 4.7.2003 at the price of Rs.11,48,000/-. Subsequently, in 2004 & 2005 flats of the same category in the same project were sold by HIMUDA to certain others, at a much lower rate of Rs.9,30,000/- . Having failed to get satisfactory response from HIMUDA, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint seeking refunds of difference between the two i.e. Rs. 2, 28,660, with 18% interest from the date of deposit together with compensation and costs. While allowing the complain read more +

Dr. V. Ramachandran, & Ors vs. Sissy Johny Vadakkekara dated 2013-01-09
Brief facts are that respondent/complainant had to undergo hysterectomy to save her life and also lost the chance of having a male child on account of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the petitioners/opposite parties (husband and wife) who are running a private hospital. It is alleged that respondent for her second pregnancy first consulted Dr. Tessy Jose, the Gynecologist of Christuraja Hospital, Kuthuparambu, who at the 9th month of pregnancy after examination told her that the foetal growth is normal and she can have normal delivery. On 28.6.1998 at about 12 P.M, respondent started developing signs of labor and was brought to the hospital of the petitioners. Petitioner no. 2, gynecologist after examining her, advised that it is the first stage of labor and asked her to get admitted when pain increased. Petitioners’ hospital was preferred as it was situated very near to respondent’s house. On 29.6.98 at about 5.30 A.M, respondent was admitted at the above hospital by respondent no.1. At the time, she was having labor pain. Respondent and her relatives requested petitioner no. 1 to call the gynecologist. Petitioner no. 1 told them that since respondent is not having true labor pain, he will call the gynecologist when it is required. At 10.30 AM, the pain increased and again the request to call the gynecologist was not complied with. It is petitioner no. 1 who attended the delivery and he applied much force to take out the baby. At last on 11.20 A.M, the baby was taken out and it was told that there is no problem. Immediately thereafter, there was profuse bleeding. Even then the gynecologist was not called. In spite of repeated requests, only on 12.30 hours petitioner no. 2/Gynecologist came and expressed astonishment on seeing the condition of the respondent. By that time, respondent was completely exhausted by bleeding. The request to refer to a higher center was also refused. Finally by 2.10 P.M, petitioner no.1 agreed to shift the respondent to Nirmala Hospital, Iritty in his own ambulance. At Nirmala Hospital, respondent was subjected to an emergency hysterectomy. She had to be administered 9 bottles of blood and was discharged after 12 days. Respondent is having only 2 daughters and in fact she wanted a boy. Thus, respondent has alleged gross negligence on the part of the petitioners and claimed Rs. 3.25 lakh as compensation and refund of medical bills etc. read more +

M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors dated 2013-01-09
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had purchased a vehicle BMW X Series X5 3.0 D from M/s Krishna Automobiles, Chandigarh vide invoice dated 29.07.2008 for an amount of Rs.57,95,000/-. This vehicle was insured with M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., who are the respondents/opposite parties, vide Private Car Policy valid for the period 27.07.2008 till midnight 28.07.2009. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.55,05,250/-. On 18.12.2008, the vehicle met with an accident at Chandigarh and suffered extensive damage, about which an FIR was lodged with the police station and accident was also reported to the office of the respondents/opposite parties. On 30.12.2008, the said vehicle was inspected by one Shri Kailash Chandra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who assessed the loss and prepared an estimate for repairs. As per the report of the surveyor, the damage to the vehicle was assessed at Rs.41,95,457/-. According to the petitioner/complainant, the repairs of the said vehicle had crossed 75% of the IDV and hence the vehicle was to be declared as total loss as per terms of the policy. However, the respondents/opposite parties refused to declare the said vehicle as total loss case and insisted on getting the repairs of the vehicle done. Later on, it appears that another surveyor, namely, Engineer Vinod Kumar Sharma, independently surveyed the vehicle on 12.02.2009 and vide his report dated 12.02.2009 assessed the loss at Rs.41,56,839/-. This surveyor also remarked that it would not be much economical to get the vehicle repaired as after the major repairs, the vehicle would not come to its original position. It is the case of the petitioner/complainant that despite the later survey report and his repeated requests, the respondents/opposite parties kept on delaying the settlement of the claim and paid only Rs.22,99,000/- to the petitioner/complainant as claim amount and additional sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was received on sale of the salvage to a third party with the help of the respondents/opposite parties. As such, according to the petitioner/complainant, the total amount paid to the petitioner/complainant was Rs.42,99,000/- i.e. 78.08% of the IDV, which is more than 75% of the IDV and, hence, it should have been treated as the case of total loss but since the respondents/opposite parties declined to do so, alleging deficiency in service on their part, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the District Forum, which, as stated above, the District Forum dismissed. The appeal filed against this order also came to be dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order and in these circumstances the petitioner/complainant has come to the National Commission through the present revision petition. read more +

MR. SANKARANKUTTY P. vs. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER RUBBER BOARD dated 2013-01-09
The factual matrix of this case are that the petitioner-complainant purchased 190 rubber stems from the respondent-opposite party on 31.07.1991 for Rs.617.50 on a subsidized rate. According to the petitioner, the stems did not grow and the petitioner lost everything in the process. Since the petitioner was not familiar with the rubber plantation, he could not understand the quality of the rubber stems supplied to him by the respondent. Out of the 190 stems, very few had sprouted but those few also did not grow. This was brought to the notice of the Field Officer as well as the Development Officer of the Rubber Board. However, in spite of information of the damage suffered by the petitioner, the respondent Board did not return the expenses incurred by the petitioner for the rubber stems in question and hence the petitioner filed a complaint claiming the cost of the rubber stems with interest @ 15% and Rs.500/- as compensation. read more +

M/s. R.R. International vs. M/s. New India Assurance Co. dated 2013-01-08
Complainant filed complaint on 28.1.2003 and alleged that complainant purchased two fire polices and other polices in regard to the various properties situated and located at various places from opposite party. It was further alleged that the dispute between the complainant and the opposite party pertains to two Fire policies, namely; (i) Fire Policy No. 1142180103474; and (ii) No. 1142180103476. First policy pertains to the building situated at Lakdi Fazalpur, Moradabad covering fire for a total sum of Rs.202.15 lakhs and second policy pertains to the building, etc. adjacent to old Maida Mill, Lakdi Fazalpur, Moradabad, also being a fire policy ‘C’ extended to cover FSTI for a sum of Rs.182.70 lakhs. During the subsistence of the policy period, complainant suffered huge loss on 30.8.2000 on account of inundation occurred due to rains and caused a total loss in terms of building, stocks, FFF electrical fittings, etc. Complainant immediately intimated opposite party regarding this loss and opposite party appointed and deputed a Surveyor, Shri V.P. Maheshwari to assess loss suffered by the complainant. The Surveyor carried out detailed survey and submitted his report to the opposite party in respect of both the policies. Under the first policy, the complainant claimed a loss of Rs.31,77,584.16 and under second policy, the complainant claimed loss of Rs.10,09,071.09, as per details mentioned in para 7 of the complainant. The Surveyor took 1½ year to carry out detailed survey and survey was carried out at the time when the building was ravaged and devastated and the report was an accurate and factual assessment of the losses suffered. Opposite party did not make good the loss suffered by the complainant and all of a sudden and in a most arbitrary manner with a view to completely defeat the lawful claim of the complainant appointed another surveyor M/s. Adarsh Associates on 16.3.2002. The second surveyor had no factual basis to proceed in evaluating the losses after two years. It was further alleged that complainant obtained polices on 25.4.2000 and opposite party sold fire policy under the old fire tariff which were not valid on the date of the policy as by a notification dated 29.3.2000 by the Regional Office which was effective from 31.3.2000 and the tariff rate of this policy was lowered to 1.25% inclusive of FSTI in place of the former rate of 2.25% and in this way, opposite party charged a sum of Rs.52,853/- extra which amounts to criminal misappropriation and gross deficiency of service. It was further alleged that on the basis of second illegal and arbitrary survey report, opposite party evaluated the losses suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs.7,40,825.31 and opposite party disposed of complainant’s claim for Rs.4,44,000/-. Complainant submitted grievances before the Hon’ble Ombudman (Insurance) for the State of U.P. and Uttaranchal Regional but claim of the complainant was returned by Ombudman on the ground that the amount claimed was beyond their pecuniary jurisdiction, hence, complainant filed this complaint within limitation and prayed that claim of Rs.41,86,655.25 under both the polices may be allowed with interest @ 18% p.a. and excess premium charged by the opposite party may also be refunded.read more +

Abhikram vs. Hotel Himmatgarh Palace, through Col. Mansingh dated 2013-01-08
Brief facts of the case are that respondent/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. Further, it was alleged that complaint has been filed with the illegal motive to get the work completed without paying fees and took many other objections regarding jurisdiction, etc. Learned District Forum vide its order dated 4.3.2008 dismissed the complaint holding that complaint does not fall within the purview of consumer against which State Commission vide impugned order partly allowed the complaint. Hence, this revision petition has been filed. read more +

M/s. Magma Fincorp Limited vs. Shri Mataram Munda,& Ors dated 2013-01-07
Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Reddressal Forum, Keonjhar (for short, ‘District Forum’) on the ground of deficiency in service against the petitioner/opposite party. Respondent’s case is that in order to supplement his livelihood, he accepted offer of the petitioner to purchase a tipper on hire purchase basis. Petitioner agreed to finance Rs.8,30,000/-, repayable in 47 monthly instalments. Respondent made down payment of Rs.3,01,317/-. After payment of total consideration amount of Rs.11,31,317/-, tipper was purchased from the authorized dealer. It is alleged that without any reason and with the help of some anti-social elements at the behest of the petitioner, they forcibly took the tipper. read more +

Rajasthan Khadi and Gramodyog Board, vs. Sm. Geeta Mantri dated 2013-01-07
Respondent no.1/complainant had applied to petitioner no.1/O.P. No.1 (in R.P. No.1095 of 2011) for approval of project for installing a stone crasher value of which was Rs.23,45,000/- approximately. For that purpose she deposited Rs.23,450/- as 1% of the project value under the Margin Money Scheme. Respondent no.1 was given Rs.3,00,000/- as margin money instead of Rs.4,34,500/-. Respondent no.1 was allowed eligibility certificate to this effect, but the entire amount was not paid. Accordingly, respondent no.1 filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for the balance margin money of Rs.1,34,500/- with interest and Rs.20,000/- for mental agony, Rs.20,000/- by way of financial loss and Rs.2000/- by way of cost. read more +

GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES,& Ors vs. SMT. SUKLA ROY & Ors dated 2013-01-04
Facts in brief are that husband of respondent no.1/complainant was insured under the Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy with New India Assurance Company Ltd. (respondent no.2/O.P. No.1) through Golden Trust Financial Services (Petitioner No.1/O.P. No.3) on 23.03.2002 vide Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, valid up to 22.03.09 (Midnight). Husband of respondent no.1 expired in a road accident on 12.05.08, for which information was given to the petitioner on 31.07.2008. Respondent no.1 also furnished all relevant documents to the petitioners who forwarded the same to respondents no.2 & 3 on 05.01.2008. Respondent no.1 also visited their Office and requested them to consider her claim, but they did not pay any heed. So, respondent no.1 served a legal notice to them. Despite service of notice they did not care to disburse the insured sum under the policy. Hence, complaint case was filed before Disrict Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siliguri (for short, ‘District Forum’). read more +

U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) vs. Smt. Shyama Rani dated 2013-01-14
Brief facts of the case are that complainant applied for an industrial plot measuring 500 sq. mt. and deposited a sum of Rs.1,22,500/- as the price of the industrial plot with petitioner/opposite party. Opposite party allotted plot of 600 sq. mt. instead of 500 sq. mt. and asked complainant to make payment of plot at escalated rate i.e. at the rate of Rs.1150/- per sq. mt. instead of Rs.935/- per sq. mt. Complainant requested opposite party vide letter dated 17.1.2001 that due to financial problem plot of smaller size measuring 450 sq. mt. may be allotted otherwise plot be treated as surrendered. Complainant again vide letter dated 19.2.2001 requested for allotment of plot measuring 450 sq. mt. otherwise cancel allotment and refund money. In pursuance to the aforesaid letters, opposite party refunded money as allotment of smaller size of industrial plot was not possible. Complainant again wrote a letter in October, 2006 and submitted that smaller size of plot was available, but intentionally complainant’s plot has been cancelled, hence, again requested to allot either original plot of 600 sq. mt. or plot of 400 to 450 sq. mts. at current rate which application was rejected vide letter dated 22.11.2006 by opposite party, hence, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Opposite party filed written statement and submitted that complainant is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act and further submitted that as per request of the complainant allotment has been withdrawn and money has been refunded, hence, complaint may be dismissed. Learned District Forum vide its order dated 12.11.2008 dismissed complaint against which this revision petition has been filed. read more +

Smt. Ganga Patil vs. The Executive Engineer (Electrical) O & M Division-II, GESCOM, dated 2013-01-14
The factual matrix of the two cases which have similar facts are like this. Petitioner in R.P. No.1348/2012, Ganga Patil, had a pair of bullocks being used by him as an agriculturist. Through his servant he sent the bullocks for grazing. On 3.10.2004, while passing through the village path at about 11.00 a.m., the bullocks got electrocuted due to the fall of live electric wire and died on the spot. Immediately a complaint was lodged with the police which conducted Mahazar and post-mortem. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum Gulbarga. In the other revision petition No.1349/2012 also similar incident took place with the bullocks of the other petitioner who were being taken for grazing by the servant of the petitioner. He too sustained the loss on account of the electrocution incident which caused the death of his bullocks. He lodged another similar complaint with the District Forum. read more +

Mr. Deepak Jayendra Mehata vs. The Chairman HDFC Bank Ltd dated 2013-01-14
Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner, who was original complainant before the District Forum, that he had purchased a Tata Indigo car in the month of August, 2005 from M/s Om Sai Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kandivali (W), Mumbai, respondent no.3 herein. While an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- against the total purchase price of the car is alleged to have been paid by the complainant-petitioner to the agent of respondent no.3, he also applied for car loan of Rs.4,51,000/- from the HDFC Bank Ltd. who are respondents no.1 and 2 in this petition and were OPs in the same order before the District Forum. The loan amount sanctioned by the respondent bank to purchase the said car is alleged to have been directly released by the respondent bank to respondent no.3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.3 failed to deliver the possession of the vehicle purchased. It is also alleged by the petitioner that instead of making delivery of the said car to him, the respondent no.3 had given delivery thereof to another person called ‘Deepak Devendra Mehta’. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3/OP no.3, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum in which the Chairman of the HDFC Bank was shown as OP no.1 and the Branch Manager of the Bank was made as OP no.2 in addition to the Manager/Director of M/s Om Sai Motors Pvt. Ltd. being included as OP No.3. On notice, OPs appeared before the District Forum. The financial help provided by the HDFC Bank for purchase of the car through a car loan was admitted by the HDFC Bank but the respondent no.3 submitted that they had no dealing with the petitioner and they had dealing with one Mr.Deepak Devendra Mehta to whom the car had been delivered. Vide its impugned order dated 31.07.2010, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the facts of this case showed that this is not a complaint which can be tried by a Consumer Forum in a summary trial under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such held that the complaint is not maintainable before it and that the complainant should have preferred a Forum of conventional Court to thrash out the complicated issues by appropriate legal proceedings. Accordingly, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. read more +

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. Chandra Kumar Chatrath & Ors dated 2013-01-14
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of respondent no. 1 was insured with the petitioner insurance company for a sum of Rs.2 lakh under a medi-claim policy and he had undergone a treatment for which he spent Rs.1,63,109/-. Against the claim of Rs.1,63,109/- made by the respondent – 1 / complainant, the petitioner insurance company paid Rs.20,000/- only on the plea that treatment in question was not a surgical treatment and for such non-surgical treatment only a total sum of Rs.20,000/- could be paid or reimbursed as hospitalisation expenses. Not satisfied with the decision taken by the insurance company in restricting the claim to Rs.20,000/-, the petitioner knocked the door of the consumer fora by filing a complaint with the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 28.03.2008 held that the procedure of putting the tubes in the nose is not a surgical operation and as such it non-suited the claim of the petitioner / complainant and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the respondent no. 1 went in appeal before the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (State Commission ‘for short’) which vide its order dated 23.10.2008 allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner insurance company to pay the respondent no. 1 / complainant a sum of Rs.1,63,109/- minus the amount already paid, within two months from the date of the order. In spite of service of the notice by the State Commission, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner insurance company and the other opposite party, hence they were proceeded exparte by the State Commission. It is against this order of the State Commission that the petitioner / insurance company and OP No. 2 has filed the present revision petition. read more +

Shri Vijay Maruti Dhandwade vs. Shilpa Prabhakar Rawas dated 2013-01-14
Briefly stated, petitioner herein was the opposite party before the District Forum and the respondent was the original complainant. The complainant/respondent agreed to purchase one family unit No.201 in the building called “Vyankatesh Heights” from the petitioner. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 10.3.2006 for a total consideration of Rs.3,80,000/-. While an amount of Rs.80,000/- was paid by the respondent to the petitioner on 10.3.2006, for the remaining amount, the respondent availed of loan from the HDFC Bank, Ahmednagar. The HDFC Bank is stated to have sanctioned the loan on 16.3.2006 and in pursuance thereof issued cheque of Rs.1,75,000/- and later another cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.5.2006. Both the amounts were received by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent is stated to have paid Rs.20,000/- on 1.6.2006 and an amount of Rs.9500/- on 9.6.2006 thereby completing the payment of entire consideration in respect of the flat. Even after receipt of the total consideration, the petitioner did not handover the possession of the flat and kept certain works incomplete like light fitting, colouring, plumbing, etc. In view of this, the respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The petitioner appeared before the District Forum and resisted the complaint. He denied any transaction for the purchase of said flat. However, he admitted having received an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- on 16.3.2006 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.5.2006. It was submitted by the petitioner before the District Forum that since the husband of the respondent and the petitioner were friends, nominal transaction of sale and purchase was entered into. According to the petitioner, the amount had been received by him was returned to the husband of the respondent as he was facing financial crisis. He, therefore, submitted that there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the respondent and the petitioner. read more +

Mudivarthi Radha Krishna vs. The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank dated 2013-01-13
The only point for consideration before us in this case is as to whether the respondent Bank committed any deficiency in service in the collection of the cheque deposited by the petitioner with it. It is not under dispute that the petitioner presented the cheque in question dated 20.6.2007 for Rs.50,000/- with the respondent Bank on 17.12.2007. The cheque was valid upto 20.12.2007 and it was an outstation cheque drawn on Allahabad Bank, Hyderabad. The State Commission while reversing the finding of the District Forum held that if there was any delay, it was the complainant who was guilty of delay in presentation of cheque just three days prior to the expiry of the cheque. More so, when it was an outstation cheque, he ought to have presented the same well in advance to enable the OP Bank to collect the amount. The complainant cannot present the cheque at the 11th hour and then complain that there was delay which would constitute deficiency in service. In addition to this, the State Commission has also recorded the following reason in support of the impugned order: - “We may also state that the complaint for the reasons not known did not implead Allahabad Bank, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad as a party which had returned the cheque on the ground that it was stale. Appellant could prove by irrefutable documentary evidence on the day when the complainant had presented the cheque it has sent on the very same day for collection of amount to Hyderabad. Subsequent events were not in the hands of appellant bank in order to find out nor any deficiency in service attributable to Allahabad Bank at Hyderabad. Importantly, he has suppressed the document which viz. , cheque return memo, obviously he was afraid that entire case falls two ground. Considering the circumstances, we are unable to fix liability on the appellant bank nor we can say that there was deficiency in service on its part. The complainant is guilty of his own acts by presenting the cheque just three days before expiry. We do not subscribe to the view expressed by the Distt. Forum in this regard.” read more +

Tejbir Singh vs. The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. dated 2013-01-11
The claim has been repudiated vide letter dated 11.05.09 on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not take due care of the vehicle who had consumed drugs and due to his negligence the snatching of vehicle took place and it was violation of condition no.5 of the policy. The perusal of FIR Ex. R16 reflects that the driver of the vehicle has consumed Sulpha but version recorded in FIR cannot be taken as conclusive proof of fact as there is nothing on record to prove this fact. The claim has been repudiated only on the above said ground coupled with clause 5 of the policy.” read more +

Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors vs. Laxman Swaroop dated 2013-01-11
In his complaint before the State Commission respondent-complainant had contended that his wife Smt. Sunita Devi (hereinafter referred to as the life assured) had taken a life insurance policy for an assured sum of Rs.3 Lakhs with the maturity date of 07.11.2027. It was a double benefit accident policy and, therefore, as per the terms of the policy in case of death of the life assured, respondent/complainant was to be paid an additional sum equivalent to the sum assured under the policy, if the death was caused solely and directly as a result of an accident. It was further contended that before issuing the insurance policy, thorough enquiries about the health of the life assured had been made by the appellant/Insurance Company and she was also examined by its doctors and found to be in good health. On 15.01.1998 the life assured fell down from the staircase in her own house and sustained serious and multiple injuries, including head injuries. She was immediately taken to City Hospital and Maternity Home, Fariabad, where from she was referred to Dr. Puneet Mittal, Orthopedic Surgeon, Faridabad on the same day. She, however, died three days later i.e. on 18.01.1998 due to the above serious injuries received by her as a result of her falling down from the staircase. After the death of his wife, respondent/complainant visited the office of the appellant-Insurance Company and informed it about the same and being a nominee of the life assured filed the necessary claim supported by relevant documents. However, even though all the required formalities were completed, the appellant-Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 02.11.1998 by leveling false allegations that the life assured was suffering from Koch’s Chest (Tuberculosis) for over one year and she had consulted a medical practitioner for treatment and this important material information was suppressed while taking the insurance policy and, therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company was fully justified in repudiating the claim. Being aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim both on account of the death of his wife as also non-payment of the additional sum as per the double benefit accident clause, respondent-complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service and requested that the appellant-Insurance Company be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.6 Lakhs under the life insurance policy taken by the life assured Smt. Sunita Devi since it was a double benefit accident policy along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of her death till the date of actual payment to the respondent-complainant and also Rs.1 Lakh as damages and Rs.11,000/- as litigation cost. read more +

Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Ghanshyam Hemadev dated 2013-01-11
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant booked Shop No. 2 with the opposite party and made payment of Rs.7,46,182/- from time to time, but still possession has not been handed over to the complainant, hence, filed complaint for directions to the opposite party to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of Shop No. 2 or in the alternative another shop of the same size along with prayer for awarding interest, compensation, cost, etc. Learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed the complaint on the ground that after termination of contract there exists no relationship between the parties as the ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ and complaint is also time barred. read more +

The Chairman Indian Bank Chennai vs. Consumer Protection Council Tamilnadu, dated 2013-01-10
This revision petition has been filed on behalf of the Chairman Indian Bank and Manager Indian Bank Tiruchirapalli against the order of Tamilnadau State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No. 194 of 2011. The matter arose out of a House Construction loan taken by respondent/Complainant from the revision petitioners/OPs in 2003. The construction of the house was completed in September, 2004 and the building got damaged by floods in November, 2005. The Complainant claimed compensation from the OPs, alleging that the Bank had failed to insure the property. As per the complaint petition, it was responsibility of the Bank to insure it. The borrower was not required to send any proposal to Bank in this behalf and the premium was also debited to his account. After the matter was taken up by the Complainant with the Bank, the later, as alleged in the Complaint, ‘realised their mistake, they hurriedly went to the United India insurance company and insured the house of the complainant No:1 on December 3rd, 2005 as it is mandatory for the bank to insure the mortgaged property. Since the insurance was post-floods, the insurance company could not pay’. read more +
PCARDB Through its CEO Cooperatives Bhawan, Panchkula vs. Shri Satbir Singh dated 2013-01-17
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No. 1 had raised a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from petitioner/opposite party in order to run his soap manufacturing unit. The loan was sanctioned by OP/Respondent No. 2 by mortgaging the immovable property of the complainant and loan amount was to be disbursed to the complainant in three instalments. First instalment of Rs. 1,75,000/- was disbursed on 13.3.2009 and second instalment of Rs.1,00,000/- was disbursed on 30.3.2009 to the complainant, but the third instalment of Rs.1,25,000/- was withheld by opposite party. Complainant served notice on the opposite party for release of third instalment, but opposite party vide its order dated 19.8.2009 informed that for want of utilization certificate of two instalments, third instalment of loan could not be disbursed. In such circumstances, complainant alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties filed complaint. Opposite parties filed written statement and took the plea that complainant did not properly utilize first two instalments so the third instalment could not be validly released, hence, complaint may be dismissed. Learned District Forum vide order dated 27.4.2011 allowed complaint and directed opposite party to release third instalment of Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month and further awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the State Commission and the learned State Commission vide its impugned order dismissed appeal. read more +

New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Pabbati Sridevi & Ors dated 2013-01-16
One Shri Pabbati Satya Nookaraju (hereinafter referred to as P.S.N.) had taken a Personal Accident Insurance policy from the New India Assurance Company (hereinafter referred to as RP/OP) for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. During the operation of the policy, he suffered a sun stroke on 5.5.2008 and was admitted to Apollo Hospital Kakinada. P.S.N. died on 12.5.2008 and therefore, a claim under the policy was made by his wife on 16.5.2008. The Insurance Co. repudiated the claim within three days, on 19.5.2008 on the following ground:- “This has reference to your letter dtd. 16.05.2008, we would like to inform you that we have issued the above Personal Accident Policy. Under the said policy Accidental Death, Injury and Handicapness out of accident are covered. Sun Stroke is not covered under the policy.read more +

M/s. Shree Constructions, vs. Shree Residency CHS Ltd. & Ors dated 2013-01-16
The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Thane against the petitioner and land owners for conveyance of the property. On. 7.3.2009, the District Forum, Thane had passed the order and directed the petitioner-opposite party No. 1 and the original land owners-opposite parties 2 to 5 jointly and severally to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the society and also awarded cost and compensation. There is no confliction on the point that the said judgment has attained finality. The above judgment was not challenged by any of the parties. read more +

Parvatiben Bhimjibhai Rathod vs. Dr. Shivkumar Chandra Shekhar dated 2013-01-16
Briefly stated, the complainant, who is a resident of Bhavnagar earns her livelihood by engaging herself in miscellaneous labour work. As she had to undergo a cataract operation of left eye, she was admitted in the OP No. 2 hospital in which OP No. 1 is an eye surgeon. It is not in dispute that she paid the fee for her admission and charges demanded by the hospital. It is alleged by the complainant that there was negligence on the part of the OP Doctor while administering the anaesthesia injection into her eye which caused damage to it and even though she was rushed to Civil Hospital, Ahemdabad by taxi, the Doctor there informed her that due to serious mistake of the OP Doctor, the damage to the eye of the complainant could not be restored. Alleging carelessness on the part of the OP Doctor while carrying out the operation, the complainant knocked the doors of Consumer Fora by lodging a complaint with the District Forum, Bhavnagar. On notice, the Opposite Parties resisted the complaint. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence placed before it and after hearing the parties, the District Forum vide its order dated 11.02.2002 accepted the complaint and awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation with interest @12% p.a. from the date of complaint till its actual payment. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite parties challenged the same before the State Commission by filing appeal for its dismissal. The complainant also filed another appeal praying for enhancement in the amount of the award. The State Commission by its impugned order, as stated above, accepted the appeal of the opposite parties and set aside the order of the District Forum. Accordingly, the appeal of the complainant for enhancement was also dismissed by the impugned order. read more +

Ankur Surana vs. United India Insurance Co., Ltd. dated 2013-01-16
The factual matrix of this case are like that the petitioner had insured his godown no. 644 with the insurance company of the respondents. The godown caught fire on 15.04.2007 and according to the petitioner he suffered a loss of Rs.25,23,552/-. The insurance company got the investigation done through a surveyor and allowed the claim of Rs.14,76,264/- and also made payment thereof to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the surveyor did not treat the goods worth Rs.6,59,459/- belonging to the petitioner but treating these goods to be of Surana Associates, a sister concern company of the petitioner and rejected the same and stated that transferring the entire goods had been made with an intention to make the claim. Accepting the plea made by the petitioner, the District Forum vide its aforesaid order allowed the complaint and held that the insurance company had not produced any evidence in addition to the report of the surveyor and under these circumstances, it could not be admitted that the complainant/petitioner had not purchased goods from the Surana Associates. The Order of the District Forum read as under: read more +

Devinder Singh Gupta vs. Dr. Vivek Pal dated 2013-01-16
In his complaint before the State Commission, Appellant had stated that following a minor complaint of a cosmetic nature in his left eye he consulted Respondent, who was an eye surgeon, in his clinic in Daryaganj in June, 1993, who after examining him informed that he was suffering from an innocuous growth known as Pytreygium and since there was likelihood that the growth may increase excision was advised through a minor surgery, which would ensure that the Appellant’s eye would become normal within five days. Appellant, therefore, agreed to undergo this surgery, which was conducted in October, 1993 in Respondent’s clinic at Masjid Moth, New Delhi and he was thereafter prescribed medicines for both local application, which included Mitomycine-C, as also oral medication. However, soon after Appellant’s left eye became red and there was acute pain and irritation, which persisted, and, therefore, he consulted the Respondent, who assured him that if he continues to regularly use Mitomycine-C, his eye would become normal. However, during the course of using this medicine, Appellant’s eye further deteriorated and became very dry and there was loss of vision in that eye. Appellant complained about this to Respondent, who changed the medicine, which only further aggravated the condition. Appellant, therefore, consulted another ophthalmologist Dr. G.C. Mukherjee, who informed him that his left eye had become very dry due to wrong prescription of Mitomycine-C and he was advised to consult Dr. P. Vishwanathan Gopal at Geetanjali Hospital, New Delhi, who confirmed that the eye had got damaged due to prolonged use of Mitomycine-C. Appellant thereafter went to All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, where this diagnosis was confirmed by a Cornea Specialist-Dr. Anita Panda. He was advised to stop using all the medicines, including Mitomycine-C. Being aggrieved because of the medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Respondent, because of which the Appellant’s eye became dry, he issued a legal notice to Respondent to pay him Rs.10 Lakhs as compensation but received no response. Appellant, therefore, approached the State Commission with a complaint of medical negligence and deficiency in service against Respondent and requested that he be directed to pay Rs.10 Lakhs as damages and compensation since there was total loss of vision in Appellant’s left eye, which had adversely affected both his professional and personal life, as also any other relief as deemed appropriate. read more +

Universal Brotherhood Co-op. vs. Delhi Development Authority dated 2013-01-15
We agree with the submission made by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the DDA that since the Complainant Societies had been re-allotted the land, they were not entitled to the payment of interest. In the case of Daya Nand Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. to whom the interest had been paid, the land was re-allotted at the higher price than the initial offer made to them. Moreover, the DDA has accepted the order passed by the State Commission in complaint case No.C-44/97. In the absence of any appeal by the DDA, the order passed by the State Commission in complaint case No. C-44/97cannot be interfered. In none of the cases cited by the Complainants the point as to whether the interest is to be paid to the Societies to whom the land had been allotted, has been considered. In view of this, the ratio of those judgments would not be applicable to the facts of the present cases. The First Appeal Nos. 280/05 and 298/05 filed by
 
© Consumer Redressal 2019. All rights reserved