Category: Consumer

Consumer Complaint – Deficiency of service or defect – Adverse reaction due to administration of vaccine Engerix-B – Non-mentioning of myositis being suffered as an adverse reaction in the literature accompanying the injection or on the vial not amounts to deficiency of service, more particularly when the adverse reaction was minimal only to the extent of 0.02 in one million – If the matter is looked at from its correct perspective it is seen that except for the appellant assuming that he has suffered myositis and the cause for the same was the Engerix-B vaccine being administered, the same has not been established with the minimal required evidence to conclude even on preponderance of probability – Complaint dismissed

(2023) 11 SCALE 325 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH BANG — Appellant Vs. GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Prashant…

Medical negligence – Adopting an alternative medical course of action would not amount to medical negligence – After the difficulties faced during the ‘Tracheostomy Tube’ (TT) decannulation process and the discovery of a stridor, opting for the ‘Nasotracheal Intubation’ (NI) procedure as an alternative course of treatment to aid respiration could be medically justified as well

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.A BIVIJI — Appellant Vs. SUNITA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Manoj Misra and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 3975,…

Medical Negligence – The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MRS. KALYANI RAJAN — Appellant Vs. INDRAPRASTHA APOLLO HOSPITAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

“Commercial Purpose” – Even purchases in certain situations for ‘commercial purposes’ would not take within its sweep the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’ -if the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods would continue to be a ‘consumer’.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROHIT CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S VIPUL LTD. — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Civil…

HELD that the leak of ammonia gas was not occasioned due to wear and tear (as claimed by the Respondent) but was the outcome of an accident[1] which was not foreseen and beyond its control and not covered by any of the exceptions in the Refrigeration Policy (Exception Clause 3) so as to entitle the Respondent to claim immunity for the ultimate purpose of repudiating the insurance claim lodged by the Appellant – Payment of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- in full and final.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S.S. COLD STORAGE INDIA PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ.…

Mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of theft, especially when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, should not be a sufficient ground to deny the insurance claim.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHOK KUMAR — Appellant Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provide for the remedy of appeal to Supreme Court only with respect to the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in its original jurisdiction or as the court of first instance (original orders) and no further appeal lies against the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. SURESH CHAND JAIN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj…

You missed