Latest news with #NationalConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission
Indian Express
28-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Delhi court orders FIR against developer for 17-year delay after payment of Rs 33 lakh for construction of shop in Rohini mall
A Delhi court Saturday directed the registration of an FIR against Parsvnath Developers for a 17-year delay in the construction of a shop in a mall in Sector 10, Rohini, for which the customer had allegedly paid Rs 33.5 lakh. This is the eighth FIR to be lodged against the company and its directors for allegedly duping various people who paid for houses and commercial spaces. 'In all the above-mentioned FIRs, the allegations are more or less similar against the accused persons that they received handsome amount from the investors on the pretext to providing them flat/shop etc. but they never completed their part of liability resulting in FIR against them. Therefore, it can be safely said that accused persons are adopting the same modus operandi with their investors for the purpose of inducing them to invest in their projects,' said Additional Sessions Judge Dhirendra Rana of Rohini Court in his order dated May 24. The court was hearing a revision petition filed by a complainant, Amrit Pal Singh Malhotra, who was represented by advocate Prateek Som, against a 2024 magistrate court order that had refused to file an FIR against the developers. The court disagreed with the trial court's view that no police investigation was required in this case. 'In the considered view of this court, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the complainant by ordering the police to register FIR under relevant Sections of law and to take up investigation without any further delay,' said the court, as it set aside the trial court order dated January 2, 2024. The court ordered the Prashant Vihar police station to file an FIR against the accused and submit a compliance report before the trial court within two weeks, along with a copy of the FIR. It also stated that the trial court had not discussed the previous antecedents of the accused, which are 'glaring in nature'. It noted that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had issued a non-bailable warrant against an accused, Sanjeev Jain. The police chased him for about 60 km and the Special Task Force (STF) arrested him at Indira Gandhi International Airport in Delhi, the judge said. The case dates back to an agreement from August 2007 between the shop buyer and the developer. The complainant was allegedly promised occupancy of a shop on the third floor of Parsvnath Mall in Rohini. According to the agreement, the construction was meant to be finished within a period of 30 months. After Malhotra paid Rs 33.5 lakh, which was the basic price of the house, the accused allegedly started avoiding his calls. When he visited the construction site of the project, he discovered that all work had come to a complete halt. In March 2019, the developers allegedly issued a letter stating that they were cancelling the agreement and issued a cheque of Rs 33.5 lakh to Malhotra. The cheque was returned, alleged Malhotra, due to 'insufficient funds'. 'It is also admitted case of the accused persons that till date no effective construction has been carried out despite lapse of almost 17 years of the agreement between the parties. As per the recent report filed by Sub Inspector Sandeep only some pillars were constructed at the site and thereafter construction was stopped,' the court noted in its order. Sakshi Chand is working as an Assistant Editor with the Indian Express. She has over a decade of experience in covering crime, prisons, traffic and human interest stories. She has also covered the communal clashes in Kasganj, Aligarh, Trilokpuri riots as well as the North-East Delhi riots. Apart from being a journalist, she is also a National level basketball player and a coach. Before joining the Indian Express, she was working for The Times of India. ... Read More
Time of India
08-05-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Woman's family wants 97L compensation for 2010 death
1 2 Kolkata: The family of a 43-year-old woman who died after a uterus removal surgery — hysterectomy — approached Calcutta HC against the compensation of Rs 25 lakh awarded by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The family had claimed Rs 97 lakh for death due to medical negligence on April 26, 2010. The case is being heard by Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya. The judge, on April 28, 2025, directed the family to serve a copy of the application to the doctor and the private medical facility. The matter will be listed in the monthly list of June. "The incident was beyond contemplation and using the term shock would be an understatement," the family's counsel, Srijib Chakraborty, Pal had been undergoing gynaecological issues and, upon consultation with the accused doctor, agreed to undergo surgery. After the surgery, the family was informed that she was stable. But on April 24, 2010, she had a fever and started vomiting. She was given blood but the family said it was contaminated. The doctor refused to discharge her. On April 25, the doctor asked the woman's husband to shift her to another hospital, where she later died.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
02-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Builder liable for giving possession without occupancy certificate: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held Faridabad-based Hamilton Heights liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for handing over possession of a flat without securing the occupancy certificate (OC). The case underscores the need for buyers to ensure the OC is obtained before taking possession. What is an occupancy certificate? An occupancy certificate (OC), issued by the planning authority, confirms that a building complies with approved plans. In Gurugram, for instance, it is issued by the Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) or the Municipal Corporation of Gurugram. 'For homebuyers, it serves as proof that
Time of India
28-04-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Father fights against doctor's medical negligence leading to son's death; SC awards Rs 15 lakh compensation, holds hospital responsible
When an individual or their loved ones get admitted to a hospital, they expect the highest level of care, accurate diagnosis, and effective treatment from the doctors. However, sometimes medical negligence and non-performance of duty on the part of the doctor can lead to an individual's death. #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack India stares at a 'water bomb' threat as it freezes Indus Treaty India readies short, mid & long-term Indus River plans Shehbaz Sharif calls India's stand "worn-out narrative" In such a case, can the aggrieved family hold the doctor liable? Is the hospital also accountable to the deceased's family in such a case? Yes, as per the Supreme Court . In a recent verdict dated April 22, 2025, the Supreme Court upheld NCDRC's ( National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ) verdict that a hospital stands vicariously liable for a patient's death, caused by its doctor's medical negligence. According to the apex court, there was sufficient evidence, like medical records and treatment history, against the hospital and the doctor, pointing to medical negligence. Moreover, the hospital had also failed to disprove the same, despite claiming adherence to standard care procedures. 'Having considered the submission made by the counsel for the parties and upon going through the records of the case, it is apparent that there is ample evidence as well as records to indicate that there was indeed medical negligence on the part of the appellant (Kamineni Hospital, Andhra Pradesh) and respondent no. 2 (Dr. J.V.S. Vidyasagar)', the judgment highlighted. Live Events What was the case? In December 2006, Shivram Prasad's son (aged 27 years) sustained a fracture on his left leg and was taken to Kamineni Hospital, where Dr. JVS Vidyasagar, an orthopaedic surgeon, examined him. It was alleged that the patient was operated on hurriedly the next day without informed consent, and the doctor did not properly evaluate the patient's existing symptoms before operating. 'At the admission itself, the patient presented with classic signs of fat embolism, but it was left untreated or uncared for. The treating surgeon should have also been vigilant and should have expressed his apprehension/risk to perform ILN (interlocking nail fixation surgery),' the judgment said. 'Postoperatively, the patient was kept on ventilator support. It was further alleged that the doctors and nurses did not attend to him regularly despite his pain and suffering. The treating doctors, after 3 days, informed Prasad about the good recovery of his son. But on December 12, the doctors informed Prasad about the death of his son at 4 p.m. Prasad further alleged that despite requests, the hospital did not issue the entire medical record,' the NCDRC judgment further clarified. While the doctor was fined Rs 5 lakh, which was already paid, the Supreme Court also set the hospital's fine at Rs 10 lakh, which had already been deposited by Kamineni Hospitals in a fixed deposit with the court. Vicarious liability—Hospitals cannot go scot free if doctor is negligent Under vicarious liability, a principal (in this case, the hospital) can be held legally responsible for the acts or omissions of its agents/employees/associates if such acts or omissions occur in the course of their engagement or employment. Explains Biplab Lenin, Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, 'Hospitals are vicariously liable for acts of medical negligence committed by doctors employed or empanelled by them. When patients choose a hospital, they rely on the institution's overall reputation and expect consistent, competent care. A breach of this duty—whether by omission or commission-—constitutes actionable medical negligence if it deviates from the standard of care expected from an ordinarily prudent medical professional and results in harm to the patient.' Hence, a hospital's liability arises even if it was not itself directly negligent, as long as it had control over the services rendered. This serves as a means to hold the hospital accountable, since patients often seek treatment based on the hospital's reputation. 'In case of hospitals, the doctors, nurses, technicians and other employees can be held liable for the acts or omissions, in the course of their employment in the hospital,' says Shashank Agarwal, Advocate, Delhi High Court How can affected families seek compensation? Medical negligence, which includes actions like misdiagnosis, delayed treatment, surgical errors, administration of incorrect medication, or failure to obtain informed consent by the doctor, is assessed by the court on a case-by-case basis. Families of patients impacted by medical negligence may seek redressal through multiple avenues, like filing a complaint before the consumer court under the Consumer Protection Act for compensation, initiating a civil suit for damages, or, in certain grave cases, lodging a criminal complaint for causing death by negligence. 'Additionally, complaints can be filed with the State Medical Council or National Medical Commission for disciplinary proceedings against the medical professionals involved. Key evidence in such cases includes the patient's complete medical records, prescriptions, diagnostic test reports, operation or treatment notes, and discharge summaries. Medical expert opinions are often crucial in establishing a deviation from accepted medical standards,' says Priya Dhankhar, Counsel, SKV Law Offices Will insurance be of any help in such cases? In some cases, insurance can be of help, especially if medical negligence has been established. Generally, hospitals and doctors carry professional indemnity insurance , which covers liabilities arising out of such claims. This allows compensation to be paid to victims or their families through the insurer. Additionally, patients may claim health or life insurance benefits under their individual policies, provided the policy term covers incidents of medical negligence. However, such claims may be subject to scrutiny by insurance companies. Experts note that while life insurance policies generally cover medical negligence, this might not be the case in health insurance policies, since they typically only cover medical expenses. 'As per the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), death claims attributable to medical negligence, if any, are not excluded under life insurance policy contracts, and such death claims are settled in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy contract and the extant regulations governing the settlement of claims', explains Devansh Jain, Partner, PSL Advocates & Solicitors.
New Indian Express
27-04-2025
- Business
- New Indian Express
Cooperative bank in Thrissur told to pay customers who lost pledged gold in burglary
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed Thrissur-based Manaloor Service Cooperative Bank to compensate 15 gold loan customers who lost their pledged gold in a burglary at the bank. The order came on an appeal petition filed by the cooperative bank against the state commission's order. The burglary happened at the bank in May 2006. The customers had secured favourable verdicts from the Thrissur district commission and the state commission. The state commission had directed the bank to provide the market value of the gold as on the date of payment after deducting the loan amount and interest. Also, it asked the bank to settle the loans as on the date of filing of complaints before the district commission without charging any interest after that date. The bank argued before the national commission that the complaint was not maintainable in view of Section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. As per the Act and rules, the complaints are to be resolved through arbitration before the cooperative registrar. It challenged the state and district commissions' orders to pay market value of the gold. Since BIS certification was not mandatory at the time of the incident, there are chances that the gold would not be 916 carat. The bank further said that claims of 95% of customers were settled by paying the market price from the date of pledge to the date of theft. The case was heard by the NCDRC bench comprising its members Dr Inder Jit Singh and Dr Sadhna Shanker. Advocates Sreevaraham N G Mahesh and Sheeba Sadasivan represented the complainants. The national commission found that the bank lacked adequate security arrangements like security guards or CCTV cameras. It rejected the bank's contention of non-maintainability of the complaint stating that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of other laws. The argument on the purity of the gold was not valid as no bank would advance gold loans without checking purity and weight. The customers are entitled to get the market value of the gold on the date of payment, it said. The national panel, however, disagreed with the state commission's finding on interest payment. When the customer gets a refund on the date of refund, he is obligated to adjust this outstanding loan with interest till the date of adjustment. But the bank should charge interest only at the rate at which loan was granted and cannot charge any penalty, the order said.
