Consumer Protection Act 1986 Archives

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 ACT NO. 68 OF 1986

An Act to provide for the better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers’ disputes and for matters connected therewith. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty-seventh Year of the Republic of India as follows:–

CHAPTER – I: PRELIMINARY
Section 1. Short title, extent, commencement and application
Section 2. Definitions
Section 3. Act not in derogation of any other law
Read detailed sections under Chapter I here
CHAPTER – II: CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCILS
Section 4. The Central Consumer Protection Council
Section 5. Procedure for meetings of the Central Council
Section 6. Objects of the Central Council
Section 7. The State Consumer Protection Councils
Section 8. Objects of the State Council
Section 8A. The District Consumer Protection Council
Read detailed sections under Chapter II here
CHAPTER – III: CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL AGENCIES
Section 9. Establishment of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies
Section 10. Composition of the District Forum
Section 11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum
Section 12. Manner in which complaint shall be made
Section 13. Procedure on admission of complaint
Section 14. Finding of the District Forum
Section 15. Appeal
Section 16. Composition of the State Commission
Section 17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission
Section 17A. Transfer of cases
Section 17B. Circuit Benches
Section 18. Procedure applicable to State Commissions
Section 19. Appeals
Section 19A. Hearing of Appeal
Section 20. Composition of the National Commission
Section 21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission
Section 22. Power of and procedure applicable to the National Commission
Section 22A. Power to set aside ex parte orders
Section 22B. Transfer of cases
Section 22C. Circuit Benches
Section 22D. Vacancy in the Office of the President
Section 23. Appeal
Section 24. Finality of orders
Section 24A. Limitation period
Section 24B. Administrative Control
Section 25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission
Section 26. Dismissal of frivolous or vexatious complaints
Section 27. Penalties
Section 27A. Appeal against order passed under section 27
Read detailed sections under Chapter III here
CHAPTER – IV: MISCELLANEOUS
Section 28. Protection of action taken in good faith
Section 28A. Service of notice, etc.
Section 29. Power to remove difficulties
Section 29A. Vacancies or defects in appointment not to invalidate orders
Section Section 30. Power to make rules
Section 30A. Power of the National Commission to make regulations
Section 31. Rules and regulations to be laid before each House of Parliament
Read detailed sections under Chapter IV here

In a far-reaching verdict, a consumer court has held that a private doctor is as much bound as his government counterparts to render help to dying persons, irrespective of whether they are his patients or not.
Slapping a fine of Rs 3 lakh on Dr A K Manocha for not attending to an injured person lying outside his clinic, the Delhi Consumer Commission has said a 1989 Supreme Court judgment casts absolute liability even on a private doctor to save life. The doctor becomes a service provider to a dying person who is in need of urgent medical help while the person becomes a consumer.
Referring to a UN resolution that every patient has a right to treatment in case of emergency, the commission said it was callous and cruel of Dr Manocha, a pediatrician, to slam the door of his Janakpuri clinic on K L Gulyani, a soldier who was bleeding profusely from a knife injury after resisting a gang of pickpockets. Gulyani died before reaching another hospital.
Every doctor is bound by Hippocratic oath: Panel
Citing a Supreme Court verdict, the consumer ciourt rejected Dr Manocha’s plea that he was under no obligation to help the injured person as he was a private practitioner and there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the two. The commission said, “It is not only a doctor of the government hospital who is bound to render help to a dying man. Every doctor is bound by the Hippocratic oath and must render help to seriously injured persons.”
This is in keeping with the Supreme Court verdict in Pandit Parmanand Katara vs Union of India, which laid down that whenever a person needed emergency treatment, it was the duty of a medical professional to render all possible help and see to it that the person reached the proper expert as early as possible.
The commission headed by Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, however, ruled that the hospital to which Gulyani had been subsequently taken was not liable to pay any damages. This is because Gulyani was found dead by the time he reached Orchid Hospital.
The couple that took Gulyani to hospital had testified to Dr Manocha’s failure to attend to Gulyani when he was still alive. The commission held that the evidence given by Naveen Kumar and his wife Vandana could not be disbelieved because they were deposing against a doctor to whom they had gone for the treatment of their daughter.
source: Times Of India