(1) Award of compensation in medical negligence: Hospital is responsible for conduct of a doctor on its panel as well as its visiting doctors. Quantum of compensation to be paid by appellant doctors and AMRI Hospital is not promised on their culpability under Section 304A of IPC, but on basis of their act of negligence as doctors in treating deceased wife of the claimant. Just compensation is based on the principle that the claimant must receive sum of money that would put him in same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation.
Dr Balram Prasade, AMRI Ltd, versus Dr Kunal Saha & Ors IV (2013) CPJ 1 (SC)
(2) Cancellation of allotment: Major Jai Prakash deposited a sum of Rs 761,934 (25 per cent of total price of the allotted plot). He failed to pay the instalment in time. Consequently, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) imposed a penalty of Rs 25,397 on account of non-payment of instalments. He requested HUDA to set aside the penalty or to refund the money. HUDA instead of waiving the penalty cancelled the allotment of the plot and refunded a sum of Rs 546,032 after deducting a sum of Rs 215,902 (10 per cent of the price of the plot). Major Jai Prakash admittedly encashed the refund cheque without any protest. He no more remained a consumer and therefore the complaint was not maintainable.
Major Jai Prakash versus HUDA & Others 1 (2003) CPJ 593 (NC)
(3) Purchase of shop: Where there was no pleading or any evidence to show that shop purchased was exclusively for purpose of her livelihood by means of self-employment, the complainant is not a consumer as the shop was purchased for commercial purpose.
Shikha Birla versus DLF Retailers Developers Ltd (2013) CPJ 665 (NC)
(4) Negligence by treating doctor: Supreme Court concluded that expert opinion was not necessary in all cases where the negligence and deficiency in service of the treating doctor was established from the facts and circumstances of the case.
V Krishna Rao versus Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and Anr III 2010 CPJ 1 (SC)
(5) Enhanced price by way of compensation: The price of plot in question was increased and the petitioner was duly intimated to pay enhanced amount as per the letter of allotment. The petitioner was liable to pay enhanced price by way of compensation.
Krishnalal Batra v HUDA 1 (2013) CPJ 258 NC
(6) Consumer forum cannot decide upon power theft: Disputes regarding assessment for electricity theft are not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act (CPA) as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
UP Power Corporation Limited and Others versus Anis Ahmad, July 2013 (HC)
(7) House allotments in case of less applicants: In case the number of applications for house allotments received was less than the number of houses advertised, then each applicant should have been allotted the house in the applied category, and the respondent (housing board of Haryana) should not have prepared the waiting list or asked applicants to take refund of their earnest money. If the applications are less, it is not the fault of the ones who have applied for allotments and they should not have to wait for other people to come and apply.
Ram Sarup Chauhan versus Housing Board, Haryana, April 2013 (NC)