Supreme Court of India Judgements

46735 Judgements hosted as on 16/02/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

Consumer

”Eggshell Skull Rule Applied: Supreme Court Holds Hospital Liable for Post-Surgery Complications” Consumer Law – Medical Negligence – Appellant-Jyoti Devi underwent an appendectomy at Suket Hospital, but suffered continuous pain post-surgery – A needle was later found in her abdomen, leading to another surgery for its removal – The case revolves around medical negligence, deficient post-operative care by the hospital, and the determination of just compensation for the claimant-appellant – The claimant-appellant sought enhancement of compensation for the pain, suffering, and financial expenses incurred due to medical negligence – The respondents argued against the presence of the needle being related to the initial surgery and contested the amount of compensation – The Supreme Court restored the District Forum’s award of Rs.5 lakhs compensation, with 9% interest, and Rs.50,000 for litigation costs – The Court applied the ‘eggshell skull’ rule, holding the hospital liable for all consequences of their negligent act, regardless of the claimant’s pre-existing conditions – The Court emphasized the benevolent nature of the Consumer Protection Act and the need for just compensation that is adequate, fair, and equitable – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower commissions’ awards and reinstating the District Forum’s decision for just compensation.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 330 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JYOTI DEVI — Appellant Vs. SUKET HOSPITAL — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section Section 2(1)(g) – Deficiency of Service and unfair trade practice – The case involves a consumer dispute regarding a promotional trailer for a film produced by Yash Raj Films Private Limited – The complainant, a teacher, felt deceived when the song from the trailer was not in the movie and sought damages for mental agony – The court considered whether a promotional trailer creates a contractual obligation or amounts to an unfair trade practice if its content is not in the movie – The Supreme Court held that promotional trailers are unilateral and do not qualify as offers eliciting acceptance, thus not forming agreements enforceable by law – It also ruled that the facts do not indicate an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – The court reasoned that a promotional trailer is not an offer but an invitation to treat, meant to encourage viewers to watch the movie. It does not create a contractual relationship or promise regarding the movie’s content – The appeal was allowed, setting aside the findings of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the lower courts. The court emphasized the creative freedom in services involving art and the need for a different standard in judging representations followed by such services.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 328 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. AFREEN FATIMA ZAIDI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 296 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHAKALI SUJATHA — Appellant Vs. THE BRANCH MANAGER, FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before…

Consumer

Consumer Law – Housing – Delay in deleivery of Flat – The appellants, homebuyers, paid 90% of the total sale consideration for a flat, but the respondent-developer failed to deliver possession by the scheduled date, leading to a consumer dispute – The Supreme Court found that the Commission erred in allowing the respondent-developer to charge the said interest and quashed that part of the order – The Court directed the respondent-developer to convey the outstanding amount to the appellants within two months, and upon payment, to hand over possession of the flat immediately.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 300 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PIONEER URBAN LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R.…

Consumer

Consumer Law – Whether respondent file a complaint under the CPA considering the investment was made in a partnership firm attracts Consumer Protection Act – The court finds the complaint not maintainable, as the investment was a commercial transaction and the appellants did not inherit the firm’s liabilities – The Supreme Court sets aside the orders of the lower forums and dismisses the complaint, allowing the respondent to seek other legal remedies.

Apr 7, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANNAPURNA B. UPPIN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MALSIDDAPPA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ )…

Consumer

“Fire Insurance Claim Revived: Manufacturer Gets Chance to Challenge Reports After Rejection” – The Court analyzed the definition of ‘person’ under the Consumer Protection Act and concluded that a company can be considered a consumer – The Supreme Court set aside the order of the National Commission and remanded the matter for reconsideration, allowing Appellant to file a rebuttal.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. KOZYFLEX MATTRESSES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 47, 49(2) and 59 – Court observed that the appellant was not an illiterate person and had signed the agreement after being aware of the adjustable interest rate option – The Court also noted that the appellant had not produced any evidence to show that he had a better option of securing loan from another institution – The Court held that the email could not override the policy decisions of HDFC and that the appellant could not seek refund of the interest paid after having received the loan amount and repaid it as per the agreement.

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH MONGA — Appellant Vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…

Consumer

Consumer Law – they neither have the skills nor the expertise to do so. However, they are liable to pay the monetary compensation as directed by the consumer forums from the estate of the deceased developer – The court applied the principles of contract law, consumer protection law, and succession law to arrive at its decision – It distinguished between proprietary rights and personal rights, and between inheritable rights and uninheritable rights – It also discussed the nature and status of a proprietary concern and its legal representatives.

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINAYAK PURSHOTTAM DUBE (DECEASED), THROUGH LRS — Appellant Vs. JAYASHREE PADAMKAR BHAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

Consumer

Supreme Court held that the respondent-company had breached the agreement by not offering possession of the apartment for fit outs by the stipulated date and the appellants had the right to terminate the agreement and claim unconditional refund with interest at 12% p.a. as per the agreement – The Supreme Court also held that the NCDRC had overstepped its jurisdiction by rewriting the terms and conditions of the contract and applying its own subjective criteria.

Mar 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VENKATARAMAN KRISHNAMURTHY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. LODHA CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…

Consumer

Consumer Law – Medical Negligence – – the respondent filed a review petition with the NCDRC, which granted it ex parte, reducing the compensation to Rs. 2 lakhs and stating that the respondent had already paid the amount – The appellant then filed a review petition with the Supreme Court, which reinstated the original order of Rs. 2 lakhs with interest at 12% – The Supreme Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the respondent for making a false representation

Feb 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P.C. JAIN — Appellant Vs. DR. R.P. SINGH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S). …of…

You missed

C P C

A suit in representative capacity (Order 1, Rule 8 CPC) is not maintainable if lacking locus standi, and a prior decree (res judicata) bars subsequent suits on the same subject matter, notwithstanding varying reliefs.

Feb 16, 2025 sclaw
Stamp Act State Laws

Agreement to sell immovable property incurs stamp duty as deemed conveyance via implied/symbolic possession transfer, with duty applying to the agreement (instrument), not the sale (transaction).

Feb 16, 2025 sclaw
Accident

The Supreme Court emphasized that the goal is to ensure just and fair compensation, even if it exceeds the claimed amount. It recalculated the compensation, considering the claimant’s monthly income, future prospects, 40% permanent disability, medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet and transportation, pain and suffering, and loss of income during treatment. The final compensation was determined to be Rs. 17,82,825, modifying the awards of the MACT and High Court. The Civil Appeal was allowed, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. This decision underscores the principle of providing fair compensation to accident victims based on comprehensive assessment of their losses and suffering.

Feb 9, 2025 sclaw
Child Custody

In child custody cases, the lawpoint is that the welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration, and a Habeas Corpus writ petition is maintainable only when the child’s detention is proven illegal or without legal authority

Feb 9, 2025 sclaw