Video TEsting

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

V Shantaha V/S Indian Mediacl Association SC 1995 Consumer courts can obtain expert opinion in medical cases if required Jacob Methew V/S State of Punjab &Haryana 2005 Medical expert opinion is not necessary in all cases B Karishna Rao V/S Super speciality Hospital SC 2010 Expert opinion in medical cases not mandatory ,Court may decide about reqirement
Uttam Kumar Rath V/S United India Insurance Company Ltd State Commission ,Madhya Pradesh FA NO 1422 of 2013 decided on 12.1.2022 ISSUE ;Insurable Interest disputed Facts :Sale of vehicle prior to accident but RC not transferred Motor vehicle act 1988 defines owner Section 2(30) Supportive Judgment of SC Surender Kumar Bhilava V/S New India Insurance Company Ltd 2020
State bank of India v/s Satpal Gupta First Appeal No 1209 0f 2017 Decided on 1.6.2022 Unauthorised transfer of funds by Bank with forged Documents Transfer made from two accounts to the tune of US Doller 26526 &7500 respectively No protocol followed as agreed between the parties Signatures differ from the specimen signatures given to the Bank NO investigation made inspite of number of complaints Bank deficient in services ,to refund the entire amount with compensation
LIC of India Vs P.R. Sumanagala (NC) On 15 February, 2018 Facts Rejected claim on the grounds <ul> <li style='font-weight: 400;'>Medical record of patient shows insured was diabetics patient for the past 15 years undergoing with irregular treatment </li> <li style='font-weight: 400;'>Medical attendant’s certificate </li> </ul> Evidence No evidence could be brought on record about treatment record,doctor’s statement prescription or diagnosis On cross examination of Medical attendant it was admitted by attending Doctor that he was diabetic on the basis of symptoms and not on the evidence of any records Further doctor admitted that kidney failure could be for many reasons and not only due to diabetics Garimella Vijaya Kumari -Vs- SBI Life Insurance Company Limited and others Andhra Pradesh State Commission, .7TH AUGUST 2018 Facts The case of the applicant was that her husband Seshagiri Rao had obtained Rs 22 lakh as housing loan from SBI Branch at Benz Circle in Vijayawada. The insured covered the loan with a policy under SBI RIN Raksha Home Loan Scheme, by paying a premium of Rs 64,057.. Seshagiri Rao died in 2014 Bank denied the claim on the ground of suppressing facts Observation of court “it is trite to note that of late, almost every doctor/hospital is observing a professional obligation and the mandate of Constitution with impunity. They are
M/s Sheth M L Vaduwala Eye Hospital Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others SC JUDGMENT by J. Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. Dt 11 Dec 2021 These appeals arise from a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 dated 26 February 2014 Facts; <ul> <li style='font-weight: 400;'>Negligence against Hospital proved in the performance of the surgeries by the use of non-sterilized appliances, contaminated medicines and lenses of an inferior quality resulting in eye infections and loss of vision</li> <li style='font-weight: 400;'>Doctors were insured but were not made party </li> <li style='font-weight: 400;'>Hospital was made party but was not insured </li> <li style='font-weight: 400;'>No order to insurance to indemnify Hospital but Hospital made liable to pay compensation</li> </ul>
Life Insurance Company Ltd v/s Vijay Pal Singh (NC) 03.11.2021 Refrence Case :Ash Rani Goel V/s LIC Co. Ltd SC 2012 IRDA Circular 2002-Explaining Non –disclosure of material fact Legal Point:What is non-disclosure of Material Fact Three Para meters for rejection of claim ; 1. There should be non –disclosure of some fact 2. The fact so concealed shall be of such importance that if it is known to the insurance ,policy would have not been issued 3. The material so concealed must have been known to the insured at the time of filing proposal form
Mr Narayan Chandra Saha V/sDr Tarunjit Roy,District forum,West Bengal Order Dated January 2008 & Dr Tarunjit Dutta Roy vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And (NC) Decided on 2 April, 2013 & Om Nursing Home & Anr. vs Mrs.Preeti Baghel & Anr. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh Case No.MA/2017/19 Review Application For Joining Insurance As Party Decided On 12 May, 2017 Legal Issue There was insurance cover given by the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company was to indemnify the doctors on account of any negligence with clear finding of negligence by the State Commission. It was incumbent on the Insurance Company to pay the amount under the policy. There is no medical negligence on the part of the doctors. It was made to the knowledge of Insurance Company by the doctor about the pronouncement, but they refused to indemnify the doctor on the ground that they were not arrayed as party in the complaint case, therefore, it is not binding on them.
Case Law :Gurudatta Puri Hospital lithantripsy centre vs Nusrat 2002 CTJ 53 CP State commission Madhya Pradesh held; 'The proper and final adjudication of the dispute can be made without impleading the insurance company as a party .Moreover, the act or rules do not provide for impleading the insurance company as a party …the plea that in case the insurance company denies to indemnify to the insured doctor under the contract of indemnity, the consumer is further dragged to litigation is not acceptable' Case Law; New India Assurance Company Ltd. V/S Hardeep Singh and others Revision petitions No 2640 & 2648 OF 2002 arising out of two separate judgments from Punjab state consumer dispute redressal commission National commission Held: 'It is an abuse of the process of the whole system and simply because Insurance company has means to challenge each and every order without regard to the circumstances of the case and its obligation to pay the amount under the policy .It was neither necessary nor proper for the insurance company to take up the cause of the doctors to save its own liability.' By Dr Prem Lata
Can buyer get claim from Insurance & dealer /manufacturer or service provides for the same cause Complainant cannot be paid twice for the loss, Courts maintained <ul> <li>Bombay Brazzerie v. Mulchand Agarwal, I (2003) CPJ 4 (NC), complainant cannot be paid twice for the loss. He can either be paid by Insurance or by the Hotel for his actual loss. But Hotel cannot be absolved from the responsibility of paying compensation for the mental harassment one undergoes. Hence in the present case also Rs 1, 00,000/- is directed to be paid to the complainant apart from the cost of car as paid by insurance company</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Tata Motors Ltd. &Others V/S Dr Anuj Paul Maini &others decided on 18.02.2014</li> </ul> <ol> <li style='font-weight: 400;'>The State Commission, vide its order dated 28.02.2012 modified the order of the District Forum that,</li> </ol> <ol style='list-style-type: lower-roman;'> <li>In place of replacement of the vehicle with a new one, Manufacturer & Dealer shall pay Rs.3,00,000/-, jointly and severally, to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- each, to the complainant.</li> <li>Since insurance company had has already paid an amount of Rs.1,50,702/- in favour of Garyson Motors Private Limited, which has repaired the vehicle. Dealer will hand over the vehicle in question to the appellant, immediately, on receipt of payment from insurance company,</li> <li>The litigation costs to Rs.10,000/- which were to be paid by the respondent No.1 and 2, jointly and severally.</li> </ol> SC Confirms order By Dr Prem Lata
Manufacturer not responsible for non-performance of dealer/service center (Landmark Judgments) 1. Honda Cars India Limited vs Sudesh Berry (Supreme Court) Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No.6802 Of 2021 Judgment dated 12 November, 2021 SC 2. TATA Motors Ltd. v. Antonio Paulo Vaz & Another, 2021 SCC Online SC 125. Sudesh Berry and 2 others, alleged deficiency on part of (All three) Honda as well as the dealer and the service centre and proceeded to file a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions and finally decided by SC Supreme Court Supreme Court of India HELD that a vehicle manufacturer cannot be held liable for any defects in the performance of a dealer and/or an authorised service centre while servicing vehicles. “As the facts on record show that the car was used by respondents no.1 to 3 for more than 10 years, whereafter it suffered an accident. There is not an iota of material that the accident occurred as a result of any manufacturing defect. If there be any deficiency in service by the dealer or the authorized centre in rendering assistance for repairs of the vehicle, the manufacturer of the vehicle cannot be held liable.
<ol> <li>Expert opinion for manufacturing defect in vehicle not necessary</li> <li>No need to replace the vehicle if parts changed and work well </li> <li>Dealer & Manufacturer both liable when manufacturer defect found (Landmark Judgment)</li> </ol> Expert opinion for declaring manufacturing defect not required if could not be repaird trying time and again Case Law; <ol> <li>Tata Motors Ltd. &Others V/S Dr Anuj Paul Maini &others decided on 18.02.2014</li> <li>Jose Philip Mampillil vs Premier Automobiles Ltd. And Anr (SC)</li> </ol> Date 27 January, 2004 Appeal (civil) 3611 of 2002 Bench: S.N. Variava, H.K. Sema
Theory of Manufacturing defect in Vehicles ( Landmark Judgments ) Case : Mahaveer Stone Crushing Co V/S Tata Motors Ltd(SC) Civil appeal No 6730 of 2010 decided on 24.03.2022 Issues :Repainted & Repaird vehicle sold-Whether it is manufacturing defect Facts : 1)Complaint before District Forum Gurugaon under CP Act 1986 <ul> <li>That new vehicle purchase on 10.2.1999</li> <li>When taken to workshop after five months of purchase it was observed that vehicle was accidental and claimed relief for re-placement.</li> <li>Dealer as well Manufacturer were made parties .Expert made on 27.1.2000 confirmed the fact .District forum ordered for replacement with cost of litigation</li> </ul> 2)State commission observed there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle neither it was accidental ,hence no manufacturing defect .It was normal scratches while transporting from factory to agency .Hence sum of 50000/- granted to complainant as compensation 3) National commission confirms the order 4) SC Observations –,Inspection made on 15.06.2003 through court <ul> <li>Vehicle found repaired from left side,right side and back</li> <li>Found repainted 80% and 20% had original paint</li> <li>Paint work done was discoloured and turned yellow</li> <li>Left front door was notworking/the key supplied were not matching the slot of lock ,not opening with the keys</li> </ul> No manufacturing defect could identified but new vehicle in this condtion is physical damage .Hence compensation to the tune of Rs 1,60000/-

Product categories