https://sclaw.in/2026/04/14/consumer-protection-act-1986-section-21g-deficiency-in-service-manufacturing-defect-vehicle-purchased-with-manufacturing-defect-state-commission/ 2026-04-14T14:28:28Z Supreme Court of India Judgements en Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in service — Manufacturing defect — Vehicle purchased with manufacturing defect — State Commission awarded refund of purchase price and compensation — High Court modified the order, directing refund of the principal amount without interest or compensation, citing the complainant's refusal to accept a replacement engine — Appeal partly allowed 2026-04-14T14:28:28Z Blog https://sclaw.in/2026/04/14/consumer-protection-act-1986-sections-21-22-medical-negligence-burden-of-proof-complainant-failed-to-discharge-the-burden-of-proving-medical-negligence-by-lea/ 2026-04-14T14:24:22Z Supreme Court of India Judgements en Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 21, 22 — Medical Negligence — Burden of Proof — Complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving medical negligence by leading cogent and convincing evidence — Mere assertions or affidavits are insufficient — Dismissed 2026-04-14T14:24:22Z Blog https://sclaw.in/2026/04/14/consumer-protection-act-1986-section-21b-revisional-jurisdiction-limited-scope-cannot-be-invoked-for-setting-aside-orders-based-solely-on-appreciation-of-fac/ 2026-04-14T14:20:48Z Supreme Court of India Judgements en Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Limited scope — Cannot be invoked for setting aside orders based solely on appreciation of facts. 2026-04-14T14:20:48Z Blog https://sclaw.in/2026/04/14/consumer-protection-act-1986-section-21dii-definition-of-consumer-commercial-purpose-bank-guarantees-availed-for-the-purpose-of-facilitating-profit-g/ 2026-04-14T14:17:30Z Supreme Court of India Judgements en Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d)(ii) — Definition of "Consumer" — Commercial Purpose — Bank Guarantees availed for the purpose of facilitating profit generation in a business transaction are not considered to be for a commercial purpose that excludes them from the definition of a consumer under the Act, especially when the dispute concerns the refund of commission for unutilized periods of such guarantees — The dominant purpose test applies, and the specific nature of the dispute regarding service charges makes the complaint maintainable — The interpretation of "commercial purpose" should not exclude disputes related to service charges for financial facilities. 2026-04-14T14:17:30Z Blog https://sclaw.in/2026/04/14/housing-finance-loan-disbursement-due-diligence-the-national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission-emphasized-that-while-a-housing-finance-company-hfc-has-a-duty-to-ex/ 2026-04-14T08:40:26Z Supreme Court of India Judgements en Housing Finance — Loan Disbursement — Due Diligence — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission emphasized that while a housing finance company (HFC) has a duty to exercise due diligence, borrowers also have a responsibility to exercise reasonable care and circumspection when availing home loans, especially in builder-linked projects with potential delays or issues — The Commission found that the borrowers had already booked their flats and made initial payments before approaching the HFC for loans, negating claims of reliance on alleged assurances from the HFC — The HFC disbursed loans based on the borrowers' proposals and submitted records, and could not be held liable for the developer's subsequent defaults. 2026-04-14T08:40:26Z Blog https://sclaw.in/2026/04/14/consumer-protection-act-1986-appeal-allowed-state-commission-wrongly-entertained-complaint-when-jurisdiction-was-excluded-by-agreement-and-granted-claim-to-insurance-company-which/ 2026-04-14T08:35:55Z Supreme Court of India Judgements en Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Appeal allowed — State Commission wrongly entertained complaint when jurisdiction was excluded by agreement and granted claim to insurance company which was not a consumer. 2026-04-14T08:35:55Z Blog https://sclaw.in/2026/04/14/consumer-protection-act-1986-sections-12-21b-medical-negligence-injury-to-common-bile-duct-cbd-during-gall-bladder-surgery-liability-of-doctors/ 2026-04-14T08:31:51Z Supreme Court of India Judgements en Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 12, 21(b) — Medical Negligence — Injury to Common Bile Duct (CBD) during gall bladder surgery — Liability of doctors — Lower forums found Opposite Parties 1 & 2 liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service — National Commission upheld these findings — Revision petitions by Opposite Parties 1 & 2 dismissed — Revision petition by complainants allowed for enhancement of compensation — Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay enhanced compensation and confirmed medical expenses and litigation costs — Appeals dismissed in part and allowed in part. 2026-04-14T08:31:51Z Blog https://sclaw.in/2026/04/14/consumer-protection-act-1986-reliefs-granted-developer-entitled-to-forfeit-10-of-the-basic-sale-price-bsp-balance-amount-paid-by-the-complainant-to-be-refunded-with-in/ 2026-04-14T08:29:22Z Supreme Court of India Judgements en Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Reliefs granted — Developer entitled to forfeit 10% of the Basic Sale Price (BSP) — Balance amount paid by the complainant to be refunded with interest at 6% per annum — Upon failure to refund within stipulated time, interest rate to increase to 9% per annum — Liability of Opposite Parties to be joint and several. 2026-04-14T08:29:22Z Blog https://sclaw.in/2026/04/14/consumer-protection-act-1986-section-21b-revisional-jurisdiction-of-national-commission-limited-interference-justified-only-if-lower-fora-exercised-jurisdict/ 2026-04-14T08:26:09Z Supreme Court of India Judgements en Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional jurisdiction of National Commission — Limited — Interference justified only if lower fora exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Not for re-appreciation of evidence — Petitioners failed to demonstrate jurisdictional error or material irregularity in appreciation of evidence by lower fora — Petition dismissed — 2026-04-14T08:26:09Z Blog