For not complying with earlier orders, the District Consumer Forum awarded two-year imprisonment to two persons, including the proprietor of M/S TK Car Bazar, Sector 7, Chandigarh.
Complainant Swaran Singh, resident of Sector 23, alleged that he had purchased a second-hand maruti of model 2001, bearing number CH-03-E-8764, from M/S TK Car Bazar for Rs 1,10,000. Lalit Kundra of Sector 18 was projected to be the vehicle’s registered owner.
The complainant paid Rs 1,00,000, including 2% commission, to the respondent on December 4, 2008, and took possession of the car. He was to pay the remaining amount after receiving the car’s No Objection Certificate (NOC) in two weeks.
The respondents did not supply the NOC inspite of many requests and visit. A legal notice was sent to the respondents, but the proprietor sent neither the NOC nor any reply, Singh alleged.
On October 23, 2009, the forum directed the opposite parties to provide the NOC with all other papers. It also ordered to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for harassment and Rs 5000 as cost of litigation.
Against the consumer forum order, TK Car Bazar approached State Commission, which was dismissed as withdrawn in July.
Meanwhile, for not complying with the earlier orders, the forum awarded two-year imprisonment to the proprietor and Lalit Kundra and a fine of Rs 10,000.
In default of payment of fine, each would suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months. The forum further issued Non-bailable warrants against both the respondents.
Read more: Two-year jail for car dealer – The Times of India

The Punjab Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has taken a stern note of the conduct of a resident of Ferozepur district who tried to make “the amputation of his leg a source of income”.
Dharam Singh, a resident of Basti Khalil Wali, claimed compensation for the amputation from three quarters by allegedly forging documents. He filed a case in the Ferozepur Consumer Forum against the orthopaedician at Civil Hospital, Ferozepur City, citing negligence and deficiency of service, and demanded compensation.
He also moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to claim compensation from the insurance company and the owner of a truck, which he claimed had hit him. In addition, he approached the Market Committee, Ferozepur Cantonment, with the claim that his leg was amputated while he was cutting green fodder in the machine and bagged Rs 30,000.
In the case filed with the consumer forum, Dharam demanded that he must be given compensation by Dr Jagbir Singh Sandhu, the orthopaedician, and the Punjab Health Systems Corporation. Here, he had claimed that he was injured after being hit by a rashly-driven tractor.
Dharam alleged that Dr Sandhu did not attend to him, on which he was “compelled to leave the civil hospital”. Later, his leg had to be amputated “due to the medical negligence”. In his reply,
Dr Sandhu told the court that Dharam’s medical history during his stay at the hospital “had been tampered with by the patient in connivance with some other people”. The words, “Consult Dr Sandhu” had been added later to implicate him in a case of medical negligence, said the doctor.
He added that he did not refer the patient to the charitable hospital at Amritsar, as alleged by him. Denying charges of medical negligence, Dr Sandhu said Dharam Singh was a chronic patient of diabetes and was also suffering from kidney dysfunction, which could have been the cause of blister formation on his leg, because of which the leg had to be eventually amputated.
The forum, however, awarded Dharam a compensation of Rs 2 lakh, to be paid by Dr Sandhu and the Punjab Health Systems Corporation, besides Rs 50,000 as reimbursement of his medical expenses and Rs 2,000 as costs.
Dr Sandhu appealed against the order in the Punjab Consumer Commission, bringing to its notice facts of Dharam Singh’s varying statements.
Commission President Justice S N Aggarwal and members Lt Col Darshan Singh and Amarpreet Sharma observed that Dharam Singh had been lying for getting compensation from three quarters, and the case called for imposition of heavy costs. But since Dharam Singh’s leg had been amputated, he deserved sympathy, said the commission, which did not impose any costs on him.
source: Indian Express

Five years after the 26/7 deluge, the consumer forum has ordered an insurance firm to pay compensation to an Andheri shop owner, who suffered major losses in the floods. The forum said the insurance firm repudiated the claim with “a mala fide intention and merely on a technical ground”. The insurance company will now pay the policy holder Rs 1.92 lakh together with an interest of 9% from March 2006 till the realisation of the entire amount and Rs 5,000 towards costs.
The policy holder, Nishat Enterprises, is a partnership firm that owns GKB Eyecare, an optical shop in Andheri (W). In the complaint filed by one of the partners, Ali Hussain Khan, the firm said it had taken an insurance policy from Oriental Insurance Company in respect of goods and property at the shop premises, valid from December 2004 to December 2005. On July 26, 2005, flood water entered the shop and all furniture and optical stock were totally destroyed.
The insurance company was intimated about the loss. When a surveyor visited the shop, the complainant said that the policy had wrongly mentioned the shop number as 18 when it was actually 10. However, the insurance company rejected the claim, saying that as per the survey report, the policy was taken for shop number 18, whereas the complainant’s shop was 10. Khan then filed a complaint with the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
In their defence, the insurance company contested that the alleged loss occurred at shop 10, whereas shop 18 was insured, and it was not liable for any loss occurred at shop number 10. The forum presided by J L Deshpande and members D S Bidnurkar and V G Joshi said that the firm had requested the insurance company to make the correction. The forum observed that there were only 12 shops and there was no shop 18.
The insurance firm also argued that the policy was taken for commercial purpose and so, the firm is not a consumer within the meaning of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The consumer said it had wrongly applied to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. “The firm had not taken the insurance policy to acquire and sell it…it was not the subject of its commercial activity or business.”
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Insurance-co-told-to-pay-for-26/7-loss/articleshow/6267705.cms

The apex consumer court in Maharashtra has shown insurance firms their place, directing that it is the doctor — and not the insurer — who
can decide whether a case requires emergency medical attention or not. It has also fined the insurer Rs 5,000 for rejecting a claim on this ground lodged by a Versova resident.
The order — coming at a time when insurance firms are desperately trying to whittle down expenses on claims — will spread cheer among the insured, feel consumers’ organizations.
“An insurance company’s officials are not experts who can decide whether a particular case is of medical emergency or not,” the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed while ordering an insurance company to pay mediclaim to a Versova resident. “It is for the expert doctor in the field to give an opinion if this is a case of medical emergency or not,” the commission stated in its order.
The case dates back to 2000. Shamim Khan was working as a schoolteacher in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. It was during a visit to India in July 2000 that she suffered unbearable stomach pain that led to severe bleeding.
She also experienced breathing problems and her haemoglobin levels began to drop considerably. Khan was admitted to Bombay Hospital immediately where an emergency surgery was conducted. She was discharged after eight days of stay in the hospital and, after incurring a total expenditure of Rs 41,158, Khan lodged a claim for insurance with the New India Assurance Company Limited from whom she had taken a policy. The policy was in force from April 2000 to March 2001.
Khan’s claim was, however, rejected on the ground that there was “no emergency need to undergo the operation”. Aggrieved by the the repudiation letter she filed a complaint in a district consumer forum, where the insurance company argued that “she (Khan) knew of the illness even before she came to India and had purchased the policy by suppressing material facts of her illness”; so it had the right to repudiate the claim, the insurer pleaded.
Khan had, however, procured a doctor’s certificate to the effect that there was an emergency situation and the doctor was required to operate on her to save her life.
Based on this document, the district forum on July 7, 2007, directed the insurance company to pay the medical claim and also Rs 5000 for causing mental harassment to Khan.
source: Economic Times