This is a significant ruling reinforcing consumer rights. The Delhi Consumer Court held that retailers cannot charge customers separately for paper carry bags, especially when they bear the store's branding. The court considered it an unfair trade practice and directed Lifestyle to compensate the complainant with ₹3,000, along with a refund of ₹7 for the carry bag.
This follows similar judgments in various consumer courts across India, where brands like Bata, Zara, and Starbucks have been penalized for charging customers for carry bags. The key argument is that if a bag is necessary for carrying purchased goods, it should be provided free of cost unless the retailer informs the customer beforehand and offers a choice.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently upheld a compensation of ₹13.77 lakh to a woman who discovered a nut and bolt inside her body 12 years after surgery. This case highlights medical negligence, where a foreign object was left inside the patient’s body post-surgery, leading to prolonged suffering.
The woman had undergone a hysterectomy (uterus removal surgery) in 2010, but in 2022, she experienced severe pain. Medical tests revealed a nut and bolt lodged inside her abdomen, which was surgically removed later. The court found the hospital and doctors guilty of negligence and ordered compensation, covering mental agony, medical expenses, and legal costs.
A consumer court directed Tata Cliq and Apple to refund the full amount and pay an additional ₹45,000 in compensation for delivering a damaged iPhone to a customer.
A customer purchased an iPhone from Tata Cliq but received a damaged device.
Despite raising a complaint, the company refused to replace or refund the defective product.
The buyer approached the consumer forum, which found both Tata Cliq and Apple liable for deficiency in service.
The court ordered a full refund, plus ₹45,000 for mental agony, litigation costs, and damages.
E-commerce platforms are accountable for selling defective products.
Customers have the right to refunds/replacements under the Consumer Protection Act.
Businesses cannot shift blame to manufacturers and must ensure product quality.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that homebuyers cannot be compelled to accept possession of a flat after an unreasonable delay by the builder. Instead, they are entitled to a refund with interest. The key takeaways from this ruling include:
Unfair Delay is Deficiency in Service – If a builder fails to deliver possession within the promised timeframe, it constitutes a deficiency in service under consumer law.
Homebuyer’s Right to Refund – If the delay is excessive, the homebuyer has the right to seek a refund rather than being forced to take delayed possession.
Interest & Compensation – The court has upheld that refunds should be made with interest, considering the financial burden on buyers.
Binding Precedent – This decision aligns with previous judgments emphasizing consumer rights in delayed real estate projects.
The Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that non-settlement of insurance claims within the stipulated timeframe amounts to an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.
Timely Claim Settlement Obligation – Insurance companies are legally bound to settle claims within a reasonable timeframe as per policy terms and regulatory guidelines.
Unfair Trade Practice – Delaying or unjustifiably rejecting claims causes financial hardship to policyholders and violates consumer rights.
Compensation for Delay – Insurers may be directed to pay compensation and interest for unnecessary delays in claim processing.
Stronger Consumer Protection – This ruling strengthens the position of consumers against delayed or arbitrary claim denials.
The Gwalior District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that Zomato and Burger Buddy are liable for delivering a non-vegetarian burger instead of a vegetarian one, considering it a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.
Violation of Consumer Rights – Delivering the wrong food order, especially in cases where dietary preferences or religious beliefs are involved, constitutes a serious lapse.
Joint Liability – Both the food delivery platform (Zomato) and the restaurant (Burger Buddy) were held accountable for the mistake.
Compensation for Mental Agony – The complainant was awarded compensation for distress caused by the mistake.
Strict Standards for Food Industry – The ruling emphasizes the need for food service providers to ensure order accuracy.
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that Oriental Insurance Co. is liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid medical claim, reinforcing the principle that insurers cannot arbitrarily deny claims without justification.
Unjustified Claim Denial is Deficiency in Service – Wrongfully rejecting a valid medical insurance claim amounts to a violation of consumer rights.
Insurer's Duty to Honor Policies – Insurance companies must settle genuine claims in good faith, following the terms of the policy.
Compensation for Aggrieved Consumers – The insured is entitled to compensation for financial and mental distress caused by the wrongful denial.
Accountability of Insurance Companies – The ruling strengthens consumer protection against arbitrary claim repudiations by insurers.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, has ruled that the Consumer Protection Act applies only to Business-to-Consumer (B2C) disputes and not to Business-to-Business (B2B) disputes.
Definition of ‘Consumer’ Under the Act – The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, protects individuals or entities that purchase goods or services for personal use, not for resale or commercial purposes.
B2B Transactions Not Covered – If both parties in a dispute are engaged in commercial activities, the matter falls outside the scope of consumer law.
Alternative Legal Remedies – Businesses seeking redress for disputes must approach civil courts or other relevant forums, rather than consumer courts.
Clarity for Commercial Entities – This ruling reinforces that consumer law is meant for end consumers, not business entities in contractual relationships.
10. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed a surgeon and a hospital to pay ₹75 lakh in compensation.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed a surgeon and a hospital to pay ₹75 lakh in compensation to a patient who lost a leg due to medical negligence.
Medical Negligence Confirmed – The hospital and surgeon were found responsible for improper treatment, leading to amputation.
Right to Compensation – The court awarded ₹75 lakh to cover medical expenses, loss of livelihood, and mental agony.
Standard of Care Expected – Healthcare providers must follow proper medical protocols; failure to do so can lead to liability.
Consumer Protection in Healthcare – Patients are considered consumers under the Consumer Protection Act if they pay for medical services.
A Consumer Forum has ordered Kuwait Airways to pay ₹10 lakh in compensation to a traveler for rerouting a flight and failing to provide food and amenities during the journey.
Deficiency in Service – The airline altered the flight route without prior notice, causing inconvenience to the passenger.
Failure to Provide Basic Amenities – Lack of food, water, and other essential services on the rerouted flight led to mental and physical distress.
Compensation Awarded – The court granted ₹10 lakh to cover financial losses, emotional distress, and legal expenses.
Passenger Rights Strengthened – This ruling reinforces airline liability for unexpected changes that disrupt travel experiences.
A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held a travel company liable for denying a refund and engaging in discriminatory treatment of a customer, ruling it as a violation of consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act.
Unfair Trade Practice – Denying a legitimate refund without justification amounts to an unfair trade practice.
Discriminatory Treatment Unacceptable – If the company treated certain customers unfairly while offering refunds to others, it is a violation of equality in service.
Compensation for Harassment – The court awarded compensation for mental agony, financial loss, and legal costs.
Strengthened Consumer Rights – This decision reinforces the principle that travel companies must follow transparent refund policies and treat all customers fairly.