Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Supreme Court Orders Insurance Company to Reimburse Medical Expenses Despite Initial Non-Disclosure: Om Prakash Ahuja vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2023)

/ Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Rights, Health Insurance Policies, Insurance Claim Rejection, Insurance Contract, Insurance Law

Supreme Court Orders Insurance Company to Reimburse Medical Expenses Despite Initial Non-Disclosure LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an insurance company can deny a claim and refuse renewal of a health insurance policy based on non-disclosure of a pre-existing condition, when the insured’s death was caused by an unrelated illness. CASE TYPE: Consumer Case Name: Om Prakash Ahuja […]

Supreme Court Orders Insurance Company to Reimburse Medical Expenses Despite Initial Non-Disclosure: Om Prakash Ahuja vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Claim: National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vedic Resorts (2023)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Bela M. Trivedi, Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 23, Exclusion Clauses, Insurance Claims, Insurance Law, Judges, Malicious Act

Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Claim: National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vedic Resorts (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether damage caused by a mob to insured property, after the mob chased individuals who had taken shelter in the property, constitutes a malicious act by the property owner, thereby excluding the claim under an insurance policy. CASE TYPE: Consumer

Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Claim: National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vedic Resorts (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Consumer Complaint: Alpha G184 Owners Association vs. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (2023)

/ Consumer Law, Consumer Law with Section 12, Consumer Law with Section 2(b), Consumer Protection Act, 1986, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, M.M. Sundresh

Supreme Court Allows Consumer Complaint: Alpha G184 Owners Association vs. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a consumer association can file a complaint on behalf of its members, and the maintainability of such complaints. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Alpha G184 Owners Association vs. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.

Supreme Court Allows Consumer Complaint: Alpha G184 Owners Association vs. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (2023) Read Post »

Compound Interest in Real Estate Refunds: Supreme Court Overturns Consumer Fora in Suneja Towers vs. Anita Merchant (2023)

/ Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, Consumer Law, Consumer Law with Section 14(1)(d), Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Real Estate Disputes, Real Estate Law, Refunds in Real Estate, Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court on Compound Interest in Real Estate Disputes: Suneja Towers vs. Anita Merchant (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether consumer courts can award compound interest on refunds in real estate disputes. CASE TYPE: Consumer Dispute Case Name: M/S Suneja Towers Private Limited & Anr. vs. Anita Merchant Judgment Date: 18 April 2023 Introduction Date of the

Compound Interest in Real Estate Refunds: Supreme Court Overturns Consumer Fora in Suneja Towers vs. Anita Merchant (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns Consumer Commission order in bank service deficiency case: City Union Bank vs. R. Chandramohan (2023)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Bank Liability, Banking Law, Banking Law with regards to Accounts, Banking Ombudsman, Bela M. Trivedi, Consumer Dispute, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(g), Deficiency in Service, Judges

Supreme Court overturns Consumer Commission order in bank service deficiency case: City Union Bank vs. R. Chandramohan (2023) Date of the Judgment: 27 March 2023 Citation: [Not provided in the source] Judges: Hon’ble Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi Can a bank be held liable for deficiency in service when a co-director of a

Supreme Court overturns Consumer Commission order in bank service deficiency case: City Union Bank vs. R. Chandramohan (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Strikes Down Consumer Protection Rules on Appointment of Members: Ministry of Consumer Affairs vs. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye (2023)

/ Appointment of Members, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 217, Constitutional Law with Article 233, Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Judges, M. R. Shah, M.M. Sundresh

Supreme Court Strikes Down Consumer Protection Rules on Appointment of Members: Ministry of Consumer Affairs vs. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the rules for appointment of members to the State and District Consumer Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are arbitrary and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. CASE

Supreme Court Strikes Down Consumer Protection Rules on Appointment of Members: Ministry of Consumer Affairs vs. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Revisits Compensation in Consumer Case: ITC vs. Aashna Roy (2023)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Compensation, Consumer Dispute, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Deficiency in Service, Judges, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Revisits Compensation in Consumer Case: ITC vs. Aashna Roy (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of adequate compensation for deficiency in service in a consumer dispute. CASE TYPE: Consumer Protection. Case Name: ITC Limited vs. Aashna Roy. Judgment Date: 7th February 2023 Date of the Judgment: 7th February 2023. Citation: [Not Available in Source]. Judges:

Supreme Court Revisits Compensation in Consumer Case: ITC vs. Aashna Roy (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Revisits Consumer Compensation in Haircut Mishap Case: ITC vs. Aashna Roy (2023)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Consumer Compensation, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 23, Deficiency in Service, Judges, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Revisits Consumer Compensation in Haircut Mishap Case: ITC vs. Aashna Roy (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of adequate compensation for deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically concerning claims for mental trauma, loss of income, and pain and suffering. CASE TYPE: Consumer Case Name: ITC Limited vs. Aashna Roy [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Revisits Consumer Compensation in Haircut Mishap Case: ITC vs. Aashna Roy (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules on enforceability of exclusion clauses in insurance contracts: Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. (09 November 2022)

/ Consumer Law, Consumer Protection, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 10, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 17, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 19, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Surya Kant

Supreme Court on Exclusion Clauses in Insurance Contracts: Texco Marketing vs. TATA AIG LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an insurance company can rely on an exclusion clause to deny a claim when it was aware of the circumstances that triggered the exclusion at the time of contract formation. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: M/s Texco Marketing

Supreme Court rules on enforceability of exclusion clauses in insurance contracts: Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. (09 November 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Increases Interest on Refund in Consumer Dispute: Ashoka Investment Co. vs. United Towers India (2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Breach of contract, Consumer Dispute, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(d)(i), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 23, Contract Law, Contract Law with Interest Clause, Judges, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Increases Interest on Refund in Consumer Dispute: Ashoka Investment Co. vs. United Towers India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the interest rate awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) was appropriate in a case of delayed possession of property and subsequent cancellation of allotment. CASE TYPE: Consumer Dispute Case Name: M/s. Ashoka

Supreme Court Increases Interest on Refund in Consumer Dispute: Ashoka Investment Co. vs. United Towers India (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Consumer Complaint Dismissal: Sudha & Ors. vs. Jaiprakash Associates Limited (2022)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Allotment Letter, Breach of contract, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(f), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(g), Contract Law, Deficiency in Service, Judges, Surya Kant, Terms and Conditions

Supreme Court Upholds Consumer Complaint Dismissal: Sudha & Ors. vs. Jaiprakash Associates Limited (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a consumer can claim a refund for a delayed property possession before the expiry of the grace period as per the agreement. CASE TYPE: Consumer Case Name: Sudha & Ors. vs. Jaiprakash Associates Limited Judgment Date: 16 September

Supreme Court Upholds Consumer Complaint Dismissal: Sudha & Ors. vs. Jaiprakash Associates Limited (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top