Skip to main content

The Top 5 Consumer Court Cases in India


People buy goods and services an inevitable process of their daily lives. We all need food clothing and shelter, which forms the basic necessities of our lives. And with the growing dependency on technology, it has also formed in some shape or form, a basic necessity. The world revolves around technology and the internet. While purchasing goods or services, you can come upon various problems from the one who delivers your goods or the service provider or an online vendor or anyone else.

Here Are The Top 5 Consumer Cases In India 

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation v Ashok Iron Works Private Limited

The Supreme court, in this case, held that a corporate body is included in the meaning of ‘person’ in section 2(1)(m) of the CPA. It reiterated the position of Lord Watson in Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps that the word “includes” is generally used to enlarge the meaning of the word but can alternatively be used to say “mean and include”, in which case what follows is an exhaustive explanation. The interpretation depends on the text, context, and objective of the Act. It was held that the section never intended to exclude juristic persons from its purview and the definition is inclusive in nature.

New India Assurance Company Limited v Abhilash Jewellery

The complainant/respondent, who had taken a jeweller's block policy, lodged a claim with the opposite party insurer for loss of gold ornaments. The insurer repudiated the claim on the ground that the loss occurred when the gold was in the custody of an apprentice, who was not an employee (because the policy stipulated that for indemnification of the loss, the property insured had to be "in the custody of the insured, his partner or his employee"). The National Commission allowed the complaint holding that an apprentice was an 'employee' since section 2(6) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (as well as some other statutes) defined an 'employee' to include an 'apprentice'. The Supreme Court, however, held that the word 'employee' in the contract of insurance mentioned had to be given the meaning in common parlance. The definition in the local Act, including an 'apprentice' in the category of 'employee', was only a 'legal fiction', which is a concept in law and could not be applied to an insurance contract. The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal.

Sehgal School of Competition v Dalbir Singh

The complainant sought refund from the opposite party's coaching school after only one year of the two-year course on the ground that the coaching was not up to the mark. The District Forum directed refund of the fees and the opposite party's appeal was dismissed. In revision, the petitioner contended that payment of lump sum fees for two years was a condition (of the contract) that and no part of the fees could either be refunded or transferred under any circumstances. The Commission held that this condition was one sided and biased in favour of the opposite party, against natural justice and not a fair trade practice. The Commission also rejected the opposite party's plea that in Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh v Miss Gunita Virk [I (1996) CPJ 37 (NC)] it was held that Consumer Fora did not have jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable or illegal. Referring to its recent decision in Nipun Nagar v. Symbiosis Institute of International Business [I (2009) CPJ 3 (NC)], it observed that the Commission had held that (under certain circumstances) it was unjust to collect fees for the total period of the course and dismissed the petition.

V.N.Shrikhande vs Anita Sena Fernandes

The petitioner alleged negligence by a medical practitioner, claiming that he left a mass of gauge in her abdomen during a procedure to remove stones from the gallbladder. However, the petition was raised nine years after the procedure when the petitioner underwent a second operation, in another hospital, to remove the mass.

The Supreme Court recognized that in cases of medical negligence no straightforward formulae is present to determine when the cause of action has accrued. The court, following ‘Discovery Rule’ evolved by the courts in the United States, stated that in the case where the effect of the negligence is obvious, the cause of action is deemed to have arisen at the time of negligence. However, in case the effect of negligence is dormant, the cause of action arises when the patient figures out about the negligence with reasonable diligence. The court noted that the petitioner had been experiencing pain and discomfort since the time of the operation for which she continued to take painkillers for nine years without consulting the doctor. In the light of this and the fact that she herself was an experienced nurse who can reasonably be expected to possess more knowledge than a layman, the court set aside the Commission’s order and dismissed the complaint.

Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr v Harjol Ahluwalia

This appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by a hospital defending the negligence of its nurses and a doctor which resulted in a minor being in a permanent vegetative state subsequent to a brain haemorrhage. The issues revolved around whether the parents of the child, not being the patient themselves, can ask for compensation for mental agony caused to them. The court held that the definition of services in the CPA is wide enough to include both the parents who pay for the services and the child who is the beneficiary of the services. The National Commission was found correct in its approach as it granted compensation to the child for the cost of equipments and recurring expenses that he would have to bear owing to his vegetative state, whereas the compensation provided to the parents was for the agony caused and the lifetime care that the parents would have to provide.

For More :- Consumer Protection Act Cases

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Know about Common Cause VS Union of India Case

  What is Common Cause Case In 2002, Common Cause, a registered society had written to the Ministries of Law & Justice, Health & Family Welfare, and Company Affairs, also addressing the State Governments, on the issue of the right to die with dignity. Denying them the right to die in a dignified manner extends their suffering. Common Cause VS Union of India Common Cause, an organization that involves itself in various matters of public interest, filed a public interest petition pursuant to Article 32 of the Constitution of India in an effort to bring transparency to the collection of money used by candidates in the process of election. Common Cause argued that Article 324 of Constitution of India coupled with the cumulative effect of three statutory provisions – Section 293A of the Companies Act 1956, Section 13A of the Income-tax Act 1961, and Section 77 of the Representation of People Act 1950 – had the purpose of bringing transparency to the process of election-funding. ...

Know about Supreme Court of India, History, Functions, Types of Cases

As the highest court in India, the Supreme Court’s judgments are binding on all other courts in the country. It serves both as the final court of appeals and final interpreter of the Constitution. Owing to these vast powers, many including Attorney General K.K. Venugopal have labelled it among the most powerful courts in the world. Its authority stems from the Constitution of India. Supreme Court History The Federal Court of India was created as per the Government of India Act 1935. This court settled disputes between provinces and federal states and heard appeals against judgements of the high courts. After independence, the Federal Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council were replaced by the Supreme Court of India, which came into being in January 1950. The Constitution of 1950 envisaged a Supreme Court with one Chief Justice and 7 puisne Judges. The number of SC judges was increased by the Parliament and currently, there are 34 judges including the Chief Justice of I...