Top Consumer Cases in India with Judgements

Consumer protection in India has evolved significantly over the years, ensuring that the rights of consumers are upheld and protected. The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 was a milestone in this regard, providing a framework for the redressal of consumer grievances. Over the years, numerous landmark cases have shaped consumer rights in the country.

1. Manjeet Singh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr

Facts of the Case: In this case, Manjeet Singh purchased a second-hand truck under a hire purchase agreement. The truck was insured by the National Insurance Company. While driving the truck, a passenger asked for a lift. When Singh stopped the truck, the passenger assaulted him and fled with the vehicle. An FIR was lodged and the insurance company was informed of the theft. However, the insurance company rejected the claim, citing a breach of policy terms. Singh approached the District Consumer Disputes Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission, all of which rejected his case. Finally, he approached the Supreme Court.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that Singh was not at fault. Although there was a breach of policy terms, it was not fundamental enough to terminate the insurance policy. The court directed the insurance company to pay 75% of the insured amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim. Additionally, the insurance company was ordered to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation.

2. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. & Anr

Facts of the Case: Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. filed a complaint against the National Insurance Company for denying compensation for damage caused by heavy rain. The insurance company denied relief based on a policy condition stating that claims must be made within 12 months of the event. The insured approached the National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Judgment: The National Commission held that the claim was actionable and that the goods were insured at the time of the incident. The insurance company was ordered to pay Rs. 21,05,803.89 with 9% interest per annum.

3. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation (KPTC) Vs. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited

Facts of the Case: Ashok Iron Works applied for electricity from KPTC for its iron production. Despite paying charges and receiving confirmation in February 1991, the supply began only in November 1991, causing significant losses. Ashok Iron Works filed a complaint and KPTC argued that the Consumer Protection Act did not cover commercial supply of goods and that the complainant was not a “person” under the Act.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that a private company is a “person” under the General Clause Act. The supply of electricity by KPTC to a consumer was deemed a “service” under the Act. The case was sent back to the District Forum for retrial on these grounds.

4. Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha and others

Facts of the Case: The Indian Medical Association filed a writ petition seeking to exempt the medical profession from the Consumer Protection Act, arguing that medical negligence should be dealt with by medical experts under their Code of Ethics.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that medical practitioners could be considered as rendering “service” under the Consumer Protection Act. However, services rendered free of charge by doctors and hospitals would not fall under the Act, except when free services are provided to the poor in government hospitals or when an insurance policy covers the treatment cost.

5. Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh

Facts of the Case: Dalbir Singh paid Rs. 18,734 for two years of coaching for a medical entrance exam. Disappointed with the quality of coaching, he sought a refund, which was denied. He filed a case against the institute before the National Commission.

Judgment: The National Commission in Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh ruled that the non-refundable fee policy was an unfair trade practice. It cited UGC guidelines stating that fees should be refunded, deducting only Rs. 1,000 and proportionate charges for services already availed. The student was entitled to a refund and compensation for legal costs and inconvenience.

6. Sapient Corporation Employees Provident Fund Trust Vs. HDFC & Ors

Facts of the Case: Sapient Corporation Employees Provident Fund Trust maintained an account with HDFC Bank. Despite instructions not to debit any amount without further communication, the bank debited Rs. 1.47 crores for statutory dues to EPFO. The trust challenged this transaction as a deficiency in service.

Judgment: The National Commission dismissed the complaint, stating that the bank had informed the trust and gave due time. The trust was penalised Rs. 25,000 for false litigation.

7. Delhi Development Authority Vs. D.C. Sharma

Facts of the Case: D.C. Sharma paid Rs. 5 lakhs for a DDA plot in 1997. Later, he discovered that the plot had already been allotted to another person in 1995. Sharma approached the District Forum, which dismissed his case. The State Consumer Forum ruled in his favor.

Judgment: The National Commission held that the DDA’s negligence warranted compensation. The DDA was directed to provide an alternate plot or pay Rs. 30 lakhs for the escalated price.

8. V.N. Shrikhande Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes

Facts of the Case: Anita Sena, a nurse by profession, underwent a stone removal surgery from her gall bladder. Despite the surgery, she continued to experience pain. Nine years later, it was discovered that a gauge was left in her abdomen by the surgeon, necessitating a second surgery. She filed charges for negligence and demanded compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs from the doctor, ultimately taking the case to the Supreme Court.

Judgment: The Supreme Court rejected the case on grounds of limitation and evidentiary issues. The court noted that since the nurse worked at the same hospital where the surgery took place, she had ample opportunity over the nine years to consult the doctor. Instead, she chose to consume painkillers. The long silence and lack of immediate action led to the dismissal of her complaint and she was not entitled to any compensation.

9. Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences v Prasanth S. Dhananka & Ors

Facts of the Case: Prasanth S. Dhananka, a 20-year-old engineering student, was admitted to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) with acute chest pain. Tests revealed a tumor, but its malignancy could not be confirmed. He underwent surgery to remove the tumor, after which he developed paralysis, losing control over his lower limbs and suffering complications such as urinary tract infections and bedsores. The family accused NIMS and the State of Andhra Pradesh of gross negligence, highlighting that no pre-operative tests were conducted, no neurosurgeon was present during the surgery and the consent was only for tumor excision, yet ribs and blood vessels were removed, leading to paralysis.

Judgment: The Supreme Court found significant negligence on the part of the doctors and the hospital. The court awarded damages worth Rs. 1 crore to compensate for present and future medical expenses and the suffering endured by the patient.

10. Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr v Harjol Ahluwalia

Facts of the Case: This appeal involved a hospital defending the negligence of its nurses and a doctor, which resulted in a minor being in a permanent vegetative state after a brain hemorrhage. The key issue was whether the parents of the child, not being the patient themselves, could seek compensation for the mental agony caused to them.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the definition of services under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) is broad enough to include both the parents who pay for the services and the child who is the beneficiary. The National Commission was correct in granting compensation to the child for the cost of equipment and recurring expenses due to his vegetative state and to the parents for the mental agony and the lifetime care they would have to provide.

11. Arvind Shah (Dr.) v Kamlaben Kushwaha

Facts of the Case: The complainant alleged that his son died due to wrong treatment by the doctor. The State Commission upheld the negligence and awarded compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs.

Judgment: On appeal, the National Commission noted that the available prescriptions did not include necessary details such as symptoms, vital signs or medical history, which are mandated by the Medical Council of India guidelines. The absence of these details was considered medical negligence. However, due to insufficient evidence directly linking the patient’s death to the doctor’s negligence, the compensation was reduced to Rs. 2.5 lakhs with interest.

12. Poonam Verma v Ashwin Patel & Ors

Facts of the Case: In this case, the respondent, a homeopathic doctor, prescribed allopathic medicines to a patient who subsequently died after not responding to the treatment.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that practicing allopathic medicine without proper qualifications and registration, as required by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, was a violation of statutory duty. The respondent was only qualified to practice homeopathy. The court deemed this as actionable negligence and ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation.

Conclusion

These consumer cases reflect the diverse issues faced by consumers in India, from medical negligence and insurance claims to unfair trade practices. The Consumer Protection Act serves as a critical mechanism for addressing grievances and ensuring that consumer rights are upheld. These landmark judgments not only provide justice to the aggrieved parties but also set important precedents that reinforce the accountability and standards expected across various sectors, thereby protecting consumer interests and promoting fair practices.