Latest news with #StateConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission
Hindustan Times
29-07-2025
- Health
- Hindustan Times
Consumer panel orders Wockhardt Hospitals to pay ₹18 lakh for patient's death due to ICU delay
Mumbai, The Maharashtra consumer commission has held Wockhardt Hospitals, Nashik, guilty of deficiency in service for delay in shifting a young patient to the ICU, which led to his death. Consumer panel orders Wockhardt Hospitals to pay ₹ 18 lakh for patient's death due to ICU delay Patients have a "right to receive competent care and that too, in time as required", the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission stated in its order passed earlier this month. The hospital has been directed to pay a compensation of ₹18 lakh to the victim's family for mental agony and harassment. As per the complaint filed by the victim's father, his son was admitted to Wockhardt Hospitals in Nashik on April 15, 2010, after suffering a nosebleed. The complainant claimed that his son's condition deteriorated significantly in the wee hours of April 16, when he complained of chest pain and uneasiness after collapsing while going to the bathroom. Despite his worsening condition, the patient was not admitted to the ICU until 7 am on April 16, he said. He alleged that the hospital unnecessarily continued treatment until afternoon to create evidence, even though he believed his son died around 8.30 am. The patient was officially declared dead at 12.50 pm, he said. The complainant accused the hospital and its doctors of gross medical negligence and deficiency in service. The patient required immediate ICU monitoring, but the hospital failed to admit him promptly despite his deteriorating condition. The patient eventually suffered a cardiac arrest and died. The complainant approached the state commission after the district forum had dismissed his plea. Wockhardt Hospitals and the respondent doctors denied any negligence, asserting that all protocols were followed. They contended that the patient's death was due to his long-standing medical conditions and non-compliance, specifically his unilateral decision to stop prescribed anti-hypertensive medication, which led to accelerated hypertension and a fatal heart attack. The hospital claimed that the patient's father had refused ICU admission. The commission, however, noted that no documentary proof was provided by the hospital to substantiate this claim. While it noted that the treating doctors exercised their utmost qualification, skill and showed no negligence, it held that the hospital's failure to shift the patient to the ICU in time, "amounts to the deficiency of services towards the patient as well as the complainant, which ultimately led to loss of a life". The commission emphasised that consent for ICU admission is not a legal requirement in life-threatening emergencies, citing the Supreme Court rulings which mandate immediate treatment in emergencies, even without consent, if delay can be fatal. The right to emergency medical care is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, the commission stated. Considering the mental agony and harassment suffered by the deceased's family, the commission directed the hospital to pay them compensation of ₹18 lakh with 6 per cent interest per annum from October 26, 2010, until the realisation of the amount. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
India Today
28-07-2025
- Business
- India Today
Why winning a consumer case in India still feels like losing
India's economy is booming, with over a billion consumers engaging in transactions daily—from grocery purchases to digital banking and e-commerce. But the very system meant to provide relief to the Indian consumer is groaning under the weight of inefficiency, poor infrastructure, and massive underutilisation.A robust framework on paperIndia's consumer protection laws are among the most progressive in the world. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and its updated new version in 2019, created a three-tier quasi-judicial system to address consumer grievances:District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) - for claims up to Rs10 lakh (now revised to Rs 50 lakh)State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) - for claims above Rs 50 lakh and up to Rs 2 croreNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) - for claims exceeding Rs 2 croreadvertisementAdditionally, the E-Daakhil portal and the National Consumer Helpline (NCH) were introduced to simplify access to justice. In theory, these systems ensure that consumers across socio-economic strata can seek timely and effective redressal. In practice, the experience is quite the reality: delay, disruption, and disillusionment Consumer Commissions across India are grappling with significant challenges:Case backlogs: As of 2024, over 5 lakh cases were pending across consumer commissions. Many cases stretch for 3 to 5 years, defeating the purpose of time-bound justice, which says maximum within 90 and understaffing: A large number of District and State Commissions operate without presidents or qualified members. This delays hearings and results in infrastructure: Courts lack proper facilities, digital systems, and administrative support. In many cases, hearings are conducted in makeshift halls without microphones, internet connectivity, or even enforcement of orders: Even when a verdict is delivered in the consumer's favour, enforcement remains weak. Businesses often ignore rulings or appeal fact remains that the Consumer Commissions were envisioned as fast-track mechanisms. But today, they mirror the delays of civil courts, with none of the enforcement by the massesIronically, while the redressal system is overburdened, it is simultaneously underused by the vast majority of Indians: Over 90% of Indian consumers do not know how to file a complaint or approach a consumer cases are filed by urban, educated, middle-class consumers. The rural poor, women, the elderly, and the illiterate rarely use formal complaint barriers, lack of awareness, fear of legal processes, and travel costs deter large sections from seeking E-Daakhil portal, launched to enable online case filing, has seen limited adoption. As of 2023, only 2% of total consumer cases nationwide were filed via E-Daakhil. The portal remains English-centric, with poor usability for regional-language users and limited mobile from the groundCase 1: The Telecom Black HoleIn 2022, a retired teacher in Pune was wrongly billed for international roaming charges amounting to 30,000. Despite raising multiple complaints with the telecom provider, no refund was issued. He filed a complaint at the DCDRC. The case dragged for two years, with 13 adjournments. Even after a favourable ruling, the company delayed compliance, forcing him to approach the 2: Insurance Mis-selling in RajasthanA tribal farmer in Banswara district was sold a life insurance policy with unclear terms. The premium was deducted from his PM-KISAN account. Unaware of the policy's details and with no documents in hand, he tried to complain but was dismissed. He never reached a consumer commission or the insurance ombudsman. NGOs later found that hundreds like him were mis-sold products, but none filed formal are consumer orders ignored?The Consumer Protection Act empowers commissions to enforce their rulings, including through penalties or arrest warrants. However, execution is rarely pursued actively due to:Lack of dedicated enforcement cellsWeak coordination with local police and administrationBusinesses exploiting appeal loopholesAs a result, consumers are often awarded compensation that never materialises."Winning a consumer case in India is like winning a trophy in a game no one came to watch. The victory is hollow if orders aren't enforced," laments a former NCDRC challengesJudicial Appointments and Tenure: Selection of commission members is often delayed due to political or administrative bottlenecks. There is no uniform standard for qualifications, leading to inconsistency in of Legal Aid: While consumer commissions were meant to allow individuals to fight cases without lawyers, complex legal procedures and resourceful corporate defendants often force consumers to hire legal without Inclusion: The push for e-filing and virtual hearings is welcome but meaningless without local internet access, digital literacy, and regional language Penalties: Businesses can appeal adverse judgments multiple times, while consumers lack the time or means to contest denials or reforms: From redressal to resolutionIf India is to revive faith in its consumer redressal system, it must address both the structural inefficiencies and the accessibility gaps:1. Fast-Track BenchesEstablish dedicated fast-track consumer benches at all levels to clear backlogs, especially in sectors like telecom, insurance, e-commerce, and real estate, where complaints are high.2. Automated Compliance MonitoringCreate a national dashboard to track compliance with orders. Non-compliant companies should face escalating penalties and be barred from government procurement or licenses.3. Consumer Ombudsman SystemSimilar to banking and insurance, introduce ombudsman services for telecom, healthcare, and education sectors to ensure quicker resolution through alternative dispute resolution like Incentivise Settlements and MediationPromote pre-litigation mediation through trained local panels. Offer financial incentives to companies that resolve complaints through alternative dispute resolution.5. Consumer Legal Aid CellsDeploy trained volunteers or paralegals at panchayat and municipal levels to help fill forms, draft complaints, and guide consumers through the process.6. Expand E-Daakhil CapabilitiesMake E-Daakhil truly multilingual, mobile-friendly, and voice-command enabled. Integrate it with WhatsApp, DigiLocker, and Aadhaar for ease of filing.7. Public Reporting of Consumer ScoresDevelop a "Consumer Justice Scorecard" for companies based on case volume, resolution time, and order compliance. Publish annually as part of the statutory Reports and made public to make an informed consumer corporate role in redressalBusinesses must also be part of the solution. Corporates should:Create internal grievance redressal teams with escalation redressal timelines and processes on their annual consumer complaint resolution reports to delayed is trust deniedIndia cannot afford a consumer redressal system that is both overburdened and underused. Trust in the marketplace is foundational to economic growth. When consumers lose faith in justice, they withdraw, accept exploitation, or disengage time has come to treat consumer grievance redressal not as a bureaucratic afterthought but as a frontline service—swift, inclusive, and responsive. Only then can India truly say it protects its consumers.(Prof Bejon Misra is a renowned authority on consumer rights in India, known for his tireless efforts in promoting consumer welfare and advocating for consumer rights. He has been instrumental in shaping consumer protection policies and raising awareness about consumer issues. Through his work, he has made a significant impact on consumer rights in India.) - Ends(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)Must Watch
New Indian Express
12-07-2025
- Health
- New Indian Express
Kerala girl loses eyesight, doctor, hospital asked to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has enhanced the compensation payout to a six-year-old girl who lost vision due to an ophthalmologist's misdiagnosis. The doctor misdiagnosed her eye ailment as squint whereas the actual cause was brain tumour. The first standard student who showed signs of squint on her left eye, was taken to the Kollam-based hospital on March 20, 2003. The ophthalmologist there, after conducting a fundoscopy and refraction test on the same day and on March 24, advised her to use a rubber cover over the right eye for at least four hours a day. She was asked to come for review after six months. During the review in September, the doctor informed the parents that her left eye's vision was lost. The parents then took her to the Aravind Eye Hospital, Tirunelveli, where a CT scan of the brain revealed an enlarged tumour in her brain. She was then referred to the Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST) where she underwent a left pterional craniotomy and tumour decompression. After the operation, the minor girl lost her right eye's vision as well.
New Indian Express
03-07-2025
- New Indian Express
Tricked into buying ‘18 litres/day' cow, Kerala man gets consumer panel relief
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Not every promise is genuine. Mathai learnt it the hard way. Three years after he was tricked into purchasing a cow that failed to give anywhere close to the '18 litres of milk per day' he was assured, the Kasaragod native got relief from the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC). As per Mathai, he purchased a pregnant cow from Ganesh Rao, also from Kasaragod, on April 9, 2022, for Rs 36,500. Rao promised Mathai the bovine would give 18 litres of milk per day. However, after delivery, the cow gave just 2 litres of milk and reacted violently whenever it was milked. It refused to feed the calf and would kick it away, Mathai said. Mathai took the matter up with Rao. However, the latter's wife approached the police accusing him of creating nuisance at their home. During mediation by the police, Rao claimed he would prove the cow delivered the promised milk if it is milked at his residence. On the police's directive, the cow and calf were taken to his residence. However, Rao refused to return the animals. Mathai then approached the District Legal Services Authority, but Rao remained ex-parte. He then moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. There, he got a rude shock. Rao claimed he never sold such a cow to him. Still, the commission favoured Mathai and directed Rao to refund him, and also pay him compensation and legal costs. Aggrieved, Rao filed an appeal with the SCDRC. The bench comprising SCDRC president Justice B Sudheendra Kumar, judicial member Ajith Kumar D and member K R Radhakrishnan heard the case.
New Indian Express
30-06-2025
- Health
- New Indian Express
‘Medisep beneficiaries can approach consumer forum'
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Beneficiaries of Medisep, the health insurance programme for Kerala government employees and pensioners, are free to approach the consumer disputes redressal commission, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has ruled. The commission rejected the argument by the Oriental Insurance Company, insurance provider of Medisep, that complaints against the scheme should be submitted to the Medisep Grievance Redressal mechanism before approaching the consumer commission. The case pertained to a petition filed by a 78-year-old retired headmaster before the Ernakulam district commission. He challenged the rejection of a claim for Rs 2.16 lakh which he spent on heart treatment. Oriental challenged the maintainability of the petition, citing that the beneficiary should have approached the grievance redressal cell first. The district commission rejected Oriental's argument, following which the company filed an appeal before the state commission. The SCDRC bench, comprising its president Justice B Sudheendra Kumar and judicial member Ajith Kumar D, considered the appeal. It observed that Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, provides that the provisions in the act are in 'addition to and not in derogation' of the provisions of any other law. Therefore, the commission has jurisdiction over complaints relating to Medisep claims, it said.
