Latest news with #ErnakulamDistrictConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission
The Hindu
08-07-2025
- Health
- The Hindu
Denial of timely, unfettered access to medical records violates right to life, says consumer panel
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has observed that the denial of timely and unfettered access to one's medical records undermines not only statutory consumer rights but also compromises the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as interpreted in landmark judgments of the Supreme Court. The Commission said that access to one's medical records — whether physical or digital — was indispensable not only for seeking second opinions and ensuring continuity of care, but also for facilitating effective grievance redressal. It also recommended that doctors prescribe generic medicines in a clear and legible manner. The Commission, comprising president D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by the husband of Saiju Mujeeb, 38, of North Paravur, alleging gross negligence, failure to diagnose, and improper post-operative care. 'Hospitals and healthcare providers are therefore reminded of their ethical and legal obligation to ensure that patients are provided with their medical records in a timely and accessible manner. Both modern medical ethics and advancements in health information technology support a patient-centric system in which medical records are made readily accessible through secure digital means,' said the Commission. The Commission, drawing on its broader mandate to promote consumer welfare and transparency in healthcare, recommended that regulatory bodies ensure the secure digital delivery of medical records in compliance with applicable data protection laws, fulfil requests for records preferably within 72 hours, and implement interoperable electronic health record (EHR) systems to promote seamless access and continuity of care. It also called for disclosure to patients at the time of admission or discharge regarding their right to receive medical records in physical or digital format, along with information on encryption, password protection, and consent protocols for all digital transmissions of sensitive medical data. The Commission further recommended public education initiatives to raise awareness about patients' rights to medical records and the confidentiality safeguards. It also dismissed the petition alleging post-surgery complications on the grounds that no deficiency in service could be established. The complainant had failed to prove that the treatment deviated from accepted professional standards or that the subsequent complications were directly caused by any act or omission on the part of the opposite parties, the Commission observed, while citing the Supreme Court's dictum that 'to hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold of proof is required to be met by the complainant.'
Time of India
06-07-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Consumer court in Ernakulam orders ‘IVF clinic' to pay Rs 2.66L for misleading couple
Kochi: The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered a Kochi-based clinic to pay Rs 2.66 lakh to a couple who were misled by false promises of guaranteed success in IVF treatment. The complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The couple, married since 2002 and struggling with infertility, had attended a medical camp organized by the opposite party, M/s Broun Hall International India Pvt Ltd, at a hospital in Vadakara. There, Praveen Nair and Praveen Pillai—misrepresenting themselves as infertility specialists—promised a 100% success rate in IVF and urged immediate enrollment, citing high demand. The commission stated that, according to the complainant, an initial advance of Rs 1,000 was collected at the camp, followed by Rs 2.4 lakh once the couple signed up for treatment. However, after the payment was made, the clinic backtracked on its guarantees and demanded an additional Rs 40,000 for further tests. The couple complied, but later realised the treatment was a sham and that the clinic was more of a marketing outfit than a genuine medical provider. When the promised treatment was not delivered and the refund denied, the couple approached the consumer court. The commission bench—comprising DB Binu, V Ramachandran, and TN Srividya—ruled that the promised service was neither provided nor its 100% success guarantee fulfilled, resulting in financial loss and mental distress for the complainant. They stressed the need for strong intervention to protect consumers from such exploitative practices in the healthcare sector. The court ordered the opposing party to return the Rs 2.41 lakh paid by the complainant and an additional Rs 25,000 for court costs and compensation, to be paid within 30 days.
The Hindu
05-06-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Consumer rights panel slaps fine on company for failure to service water purifier
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has slapped a company engaged in manufacturing and marketing household electrical appliances with a fine of ₹30,000 for the alleged failure to repair a water purifier despite an annual maintenance contract (AMC) being in place. The Commission comprising D.B. Binu, president, and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. issued the ex parte order on a petition filed by one Ajish. K. John of Kothamangalam against the manager of Eureka Forbes Ltd. The complainant said he had an AMC with the opposite party since 2018, which he regularly renewed for uninterrupted service. Despite this, the complainant faced repeated service issues. In April 2024, the purifier began leaking, and although a service request was raised, it was later cancelled unilaterally by the opposite party, he said. Following this, the complainant approached the Commission. However, the opposite party failed to submit any argument notes or participate in the proceedings. The Commission observed that the service lapses constituted a deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Further, unilateral cancellation of a service request without informing the complainant amounts to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47), as it misleads or fails to fulfil a promised contractual obligation, the Commission observed. The complainant, being deprived of clean drinking water due to the non-functioning of the purifier, endured mental agony, hardship, and inconvenience, especially given that the purifier was essential due to contaminated well water. 'The Complainant, despite diligently maintaining an Annual Maintenance Contract and repeatedly reaching out for help, was met with silence, delays, and even the unjust cancellation of service. This experience not only disrupted his daily life but also caused significant mental distress. When a consumer is compelled to approach a legal forum for the enforcement of basic service obligations, it reflects a glaring failure in corporate responsibility and empathy, values that should be at the heart of every consumer-facing organisation,' the Commission remarked. Consequently, the opposite party was directed to pay ₹25,000 as fine and another ₹5,000 towards the cost of legal proceedings.
The Hindu
04-06-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Ernakulam consumer panel orders retailer to pay compensation for delivering faulty phone
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered an online retailer to pay a total compensation of ₹70,000 to a resident of Kacheripady, Ernakulam, for delivering a defective and old mobile phone and cheating him by terming it as a brand new device. The compensation included ₹55,000 that the consumer had paid for the phone, ₹10,000 towards misrepresentation and causing mental agony to him, and ₹5,000 as the cost of proceedings. The order dated April 30, 2025 issued by the panel led by D.B. Binu, president of the panel, said that the online retailer had allegedly showcased the mobile as a brand-new smartphone with warranty. Instead, they delivered an old, used, and defective handset of the 2021 model without accessories. The authorised service centre had informed the complainant that there was no valid warranty for the device. The online retailer later admitted that they dealt with refurbished units, which was not disclosed at the time of the sale, it said. The panel found that a refund was not made despite the consumer returning the device and issuing repeated reminders. The non-delivery of the promised product and failure to refund the amount despite the return of goods amount to deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The opposite parties consciously refrained from filing their version even after serving the notice. Thus, the allegations stand unchallenged, according to the order.
Hindustan Times
23-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Restaurant has no legal obligation to serve gravy with parotta and beef fry, says Kerala Consumer Court
In an unusual consumer dispute, a complaint against a Kerala restaurant for failing to serve complimentary gravy with a beef fry and porotta order has been dismissed by the Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), according to a report by Bar and Bench. The Commission held that there was no legal or contractual obligation requiring the restaurant to provide free gravy, and therefore, no deficiency in service had occurred. (Also read: New York woman says she found dead rat in salad after eating 'two-thirds' of meal; restaurant denies claim) Presiding over the case, District Forum President DB Binu and members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia TN unanimously ruled that the restaurant's decision did not breach any provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 'In the instant case, there was no contractual obligation—express or implied—on the part of the Opposite Party to provide gravy. Therefore, the non-providing of gravy at the time of supplying porotta and beef cannot be considered as a deficiency in service from the part of opposite party No.1 and 2, and hence no enforceable consumer relationship arises in this respect,' the Commission observed. The complainant, journalist Shibu S Vayalakath, had visited The Persian Table, a restaurant located in Kolenchery, in November last year. After ordering beef fry and porotta, he requested gravy to accompany the meal, a request the restaurant denied, citing its internal policy of not providing complimentary gravy. Displeased by the refusal, Shibu initially approached the Kunnathunadu Taluk Supply Officer. A joint investigation by supply and food safety officers confirmed that the restaurant did not include gravy in its standard offerings. Subsequently, Shibu filed a consumer complaint demanding ₹1 lakh for emotional distress and mental agony, ₹10,000 in legal expenses, and punitive action against the establishment. He argued that the denial of gravy amounted to a restrictive trade practice and a deficiency in service. However, the forum disagreed, pointing out that the case did not concern the quality, quantity, or safety of food—criteria essential to establish a deficiency under the law. (Also read: 'No real estate or political talks': Bengaluru restaurant board catches internet's eye) As per the report by Bar and Bench, the Commission, relying on Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, held that since there was no mention of gravy in the menu or bill, the restaurant had neither misrepresented nor deceived the customer in any way. 'In the instant case, there is no evidence of any misrepresentation, false promise, or deceptive trade practice committed by the Opposite Party. Neither the menu nor the bill suggests that gravy was included with, or promised alongside, the ordered dishes. A restaurant's internal policy regarding accompaniments cannot, in the absence of a legal or contractual obligation, be construed as a deficiency in service,' it ruled. With that, the forum dismissed the complaint, affirming that the absence of free gravy did not violate any consumer rights.
