Le­gal Snap­shot

Consumer Voice - - Spyglass -

(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)

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.