New Delhi [India], October 7 (ANI): National Lok Adalat will be held on November 12, 2022 across the country to dispose of pending cases through settlement, said the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution on Thursday.

New Delhi [India], July 20 (ANI): The Delhi High court on Wednesday stayed the operation of guidelines issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) restraining the levying of service charge by restaurants and hotels.

New Delhi [India], May 21 (ANI): The Supreme Court has said that insurance companies should not be too technical while settling claims and ask for documents that the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.

New Delhi Nov 30 PTI A medical professional has to upgrade himself with the latest development in his field which may require him to attend conferences held both in and outside the country and the mere fact that the doctor had gone abroad cannot lead to an inference of medical negligence the Supreme Court on Tuesday saidA bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian observed while setting aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had directed the Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre and a doctor to pay a sum of Rs 1418 lakh along with interest to the legal heirs of the deceasedThe top court said it does not find that the basis of finding the doctor negligent in providing medical care is sustainable as there are both legal and factual errors in the findings recorded by the CommissionIt said every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered to be medical negligenceIn respect to such contention of the Doctor being on a foreign visit it is well known a medical professional has to upgrade himself with the latest development in his field which may require him to attend conferences held both in and outside the country Mere fact that the Doctor had gone abroad cannot lead to an inference of medical negligence as the patient was admitted in a hospital having specialists in multi-faculties the bench saidThe apex court said that the NCDRC had commented adversely against the doctor that he had not seen or attended the patient for several days before his departure for his tour to USA and UK for about a month and had not even indicated the name of any super specialist in his field who should look after the patient in his absence It said The patient was even attended by other specialist doctors as well which is evident from the brief summary of treatment given to the patient The experts in the other fields have been consulted from time to time and the treatment was modulated accordingly In spite of the treatment if the patient had not survived the doctors cannot be blamed as even the doctors with the best of their abilities cannot prevent the inevitable The bench said it is a case where the patient was in serious condition impending gangrene even before admission to the Hospital but even after surgery and re-exploration if the patient does not survive the fault cannot be fastened on the doctors as a case of medical negligenceIt is too much to expect from a doctor to remain at the bedside of the patient throughout his stay in the hospital which was being expected by the complainant here A doctor is expected to provide reasonable care which is not proved to be lacking in any manner in the present case the bench said The apex court also said that operation theatres in hospitals cannot be presumed to be available at all timesTherefore non-availability of an emergency operation theatre during the period when surgeries were being performed on other patients is not a valid ground to hold a hospital negligent in any manner the bench saidThe top court was hearing an appeal filed by the hospital challenging the NCDRC order which had directed it and the concerned doctor to pay a sum of Rs 1418 lakh along with interest to the legal heirs of the deceasedThe complaint was filed before the Commission by the legal heirs of the deceased alleging medical negligence on the part of the hospital and the doctor in treating the patient PTI PKS RKS RKS

New Delhi [India], October 28 (ANI): The Department of Consumer Affairs under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has invited applications to fill three existing vacancies for the post of members in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

New Delhi Sep 28 PTI The Supreme Court Tuesday said it is not impossible for an experienced architect to find out during inspection that inadequacies in the condition of amenities like fire-fighting equipment and water softening plants in a building complex were due to due to lack of maintenance or incomplete commissioningThe apex court made the observation while dealing with a matter in which the residents welfare association of an apartment complex in Noida had filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC raising several issues including that of water softening plants fire-fighting equipment and second swimming pool in the societyThe NCDRC in its January 2010 order had partly allowed the complaint filed by the RWA after which the builder and the association had approached the top courtA bench comprising justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian noted in its judgement that while adjudicating the matter the NCDRC had appointed a local commissioner who was an architect to inspect the facilities regarding which the RWA had raised issues including water softening plants fire-fighting equipment and second swimming pool in the apartment complex The top court noted that the local commissioner had submitted a report after making an inspection in the presence of the representatives of both the parties and the NCDRC had accepted the report and allowed the complaint partlyIt said that the local commissioner had examined the facilities and found several things including that equipment for the water softening plant was incomplete and fire-fighting equipment was not in operation due to incomplete commissioning of the system as a wholeIn the light of the aforesaid findings by an independent architect appointed by the National Commission it is not open to the opposite party builder to create a facade as though all essential services and amenities were handed over in a fully functional state the bench saidThe court observed that if all the services had been handed over in a fully functional state the builder should have taken an acknowledgment in writing from the RWAIt is not impossible for an experienced architect to find out whether the condition in which the aforesaid amenities and services were found on the date of the inspection was entirely due to lack of maintenance or due to noncommissioning or incomplete commissioning it saidThe bench noted that as per the operative portion of the NCDRC order the builder is obliged to make the facilities including fire safety equipment and water softening plant fully operational and is also obliged to obtain a certificate of completion from an independent architectIt said as per the order if the builder fails to do so within the time stipulated by the NCDRC it was obliged to pay the cost as estimated by the commissioner in his July 2008 report which comes to around Rs 116 croreThe top court noted that when it had issued a notice in the matter in 2010 it had stayed the operation of the NCDRC order on the condition that the builder would deposit Rs 60 lakh which was deposited and the amount was invested in a fixed deposit which is renewed from time to time by the court orderIn view of the fact that the possession of the common amenities was handed over by the opposite party builder to the complainant association 18 years ago under the agreement dated November 15 2003 it may not be possible at this distance of time to compel the opposite party to make those facilitiessystemsfully operational now it saidThe bench noted that the estimate is around Rs 116 crores including the cost of fire-fighting equipment which comes to around Rs 83 lakhsTherefore taking into account the overall picture we are of the considered view that interests of justice will be met if the order of the National Commission is modified in such a manner i that the complainant association shall receive in the full and final settlement the deposit now lying in the Registry of this court towards adequate compensation for the reliefs that they are held entitled to by the National Commission the bench saidIt directed the builder to remove all building material stored in the clubhouse in the basement of a tower there and hand over possession of the clubhouse to the RWAThe bench dismissed the separate plea filed by the RWA against the NCDRC order which had refused to grant certain reliefs sought by the associationThe apartment complex had around 282 apartments and the completion certificate was issued in December 2001The RWA was registered in 2003 and the association had entered into an agreement in November 2003 with the builder for taking over the maintenance of the apartment complex Thereafter the RWA had filed a consumer complaint before the NCDRC which was opposed by the builder on merits as well as on the ground of limitationBoth the builder as well as the RWA had approached the apex court against the order passed by the apex consumer commission PTI ABA ABA RKS RKS

New Delhi Sep 24 PTI The Delhi High Court Friday stayed an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC sentencing Supertechs MD Mohit Arora to 3-year imprisonment and issuing arrest warrant against him for non-compliance of an order in a case by a home buyerJustice Amit Bansal directed the realty firm to deposit Rs 50 lakh out of the outstanding Rs 175 crore in the home buyers account within a week to show its bona fide to the courtThe NCDRC order to the extent that the companys MD is sentenced to 3-year imprisonment shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing - October 4The court also directed both the company and the home buyer to place on record the statement of amount due as per the NCDRC orderThe high court was hearing Supertechs plea challenging the September 20 order by which Arora was given 3-year jail and the arrest warrant was issued against him for non-compliance with NCDRC directionsThe NCDRC case pertained to the home buyers complaint for delay in giving possession of a villa in one of the companys project in Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Area which was allotted for over Rs 1 croreSenior advocate Sandeep Sethi representing Supertech argued that the NCDRC order was beyond the provisions of section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and there was no provision it which casts vicarious liability on the MD to make him liable in criminal or civil matter in case of default by the companyThe MD was sentenced without even conducting a trial he said added so the man goes to jail if the company does not comply with the order in seven daysThe plea was opposed by home buyer Kanwal Batras counsel who said the company was in repeated default of the NCDRC order and has gone back on its undertaking to the forumAdvocate Shailesh Madiyal appearing for Batra said everytime the company gives an undertaking to NCDRC and then fails to turn up the next time and warrants have to be issuedDuring the hearing Supertechs counsel offered to pay Rs 40 lakh to the home buyer within a week to show bona fide however the complainants counsel said it was too smallThe court then directed the company to deposit Rs 50 lakh within a week after which it will again hear the matter and added that substantial money has to come backThe high court was earlier informed that the arrest warrant was issued on September 20 by the NCDRC which had on September 13 rejected Supertechs plea for fixing 12-month instalments for payment of the decretal amountIn April 2019 the NCDRC had ordered the company to either give possession of the villa within six months along with compensation and costs or refund the entire amount received by it along with compensationOn July 20 the MD had assured the NCDRC that the order would be complied with within 60 daysHowever on September 20 NCDRC noted that in spite of the commitment the order was yet to be implemented and opined that the company was evading the implementation of the decreeIt had thus issued an arrest warrant against the MD and sentenced him to three years imprisonment subject to the implementation of the order within a weekIn view of non-compliance of the direction and dishonouring his own commitment we sentence the MD of the Judgement Debtor company as per powers under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for three years imprisonment and issue warrants of arrest against the managing director of the Judgment Debtor company The warrants shall not be executed if the Judgment Debtor deposits the decretal amount before this Commission within one week it had said PTI SKV SA

New Delhi Sep 22 PTI The Delhi High Court has allowed real estate company Supertech to challenge a consumer court order issuing an arrest warrant against its Managing Director Mohit Arora on a case by a homebuyerThe high court was informed that the arrest warrant was issued on September 20 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC which earlier on September 13 had rejected Supertechs plea for fixing twelve months instalments in respect of payment of the decretal amount to the homebuyer Justice Amit Bansal granted permission to the company to withdraw its pending petition challenging a September 13 order of the NCDRC Counsel for the company told the court that the NCDRC on September 20 issued an arrest warrant against the Managing Director and thus urged that the pending plea be permitted to be withdrawn in order to now assail the order on the issuance of the arrest warrant by way of a fresh petitionIn view of the subsequent developments the counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition to file another petition impugning the order passed by the NCDRC on the issuance of arrest warrant Dismissed as withdrawn the judge said in its order dated September 20The case before the NCDRC pertained to a complaint by a homebuyer represented by lawyer Vrinda Kapoor Dev who was aggrieved by the delay in offering possession of a villa in one of the companys project in Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Area which was allotted for a consideration of over Rs 102 crore In April 2019 the NCDRC had ordered the company to either offer possession of the villa within six months along with compensation and costs or refund the entire amount received by it along with compensationOn July 20 the Managing Director had assured the NCDRC that the order would be complied with within 60 daysHowever on September 20 NCDRC noted that in spite of the commitment the order was yet to be implemented and opined that the company was evading the implementation of the decreeIt thus issued an arrest warrant against the Managing Director for three years imprisonment subject to the implementation of the order within a weekIn view of non-compliance of the direction and dishonouring his own commitment we sentence the Managing Director of the Judgement Debtor Company as per powers under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for three years imprisonment and issue Warrants of Arrest against the Managing Director of the Judgment Debtor Company The Warrants shall not be executed if the Judgment Debtor deposits the decretal amount before this Commission within one week it stated PTI ADS RKS RKS