Supreme Court: We are duty-bound to order performance audit of laws

Source: MSN

The Supreme Court has said that in the Indian legislative system, where most bills are introduced by govt and very few private members' bills are presented and debated in Parliament, it becomes the apex court's duty to direct performance audit and assessment of impact of legislations. While upholding constitutional validity of provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) relating to pecuniary jurisdiction of district, state and national consumer foras, a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra asked the Central Consumer Protection Council (CCPC) and the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to "survey review and advise the govt about measures for effective and efficient redressal and working of the statute."

To read more please go to the following link:

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/we-are-duty-bound-to-order-performance-audit-of-laws-sc/ar-AA1E0uMl

SC upholds doctors’ liability under Consumer Protection Act, rejects review plea

Source: Economic Times

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed doctors' accountability under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, dismissing a review petition against its 1995 ruling that doctors can be held liable for medical negligence. The court concluded that the existing judgment does not require reconsideration, maintaining that 'services' include medical consultation, diagnosis, and treatment. to read more please go to the following link:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/sc-upholds-doctors-liability-under-consumer-protection-act-rejects-review-plea/articleshow/118393276.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

SC makes Shimla hospital, docs pay for insensitivity

Source: Times of India dated 8th March 2019

Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesgroup.com

New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Thursday granted an additional Rs 10 lakh in compensation to a poor woman from the hills in a medical negligence case on finding that when she was writhing in pain, doctors at a Shimla hospital insensitively chided her by saying “people from hilly areas make unnecessary noise”.

Due to medical negligence at Ripon Hospital, Shimla, the woman’s right arm had to be amputated. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission awarded her Rs 2 lakh compensation in addition to Rs 2.93 lakh ex gratia granted by the state consumer forum. She appealed in the apex court seeking more compensation.

A bench of Justices A M Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari acceded to her request and said the approach in awarding compensation should not be restrictive when the victim comes from a poor and rural background, rather in a case like this, it should be reasonably higher.

Writing the judgment, Justice Maheshwari said, “Grant of reasonably higher amount of compensation in the present case appears necessary to serve dual purposes: one, to provide some succour and support to the appellant against the hardship and disadvantage due to amputation of right arm; and second, to send the message to professionals that their responsiveness and diligence has to be equi-balanced for all their consumers and all human beings deserve to be treated with equal respect and sensitivity.”

“We are impelled to make these observations in the context of an uncomfortable fact indicated on record that when the appellant was writhing in pain, she was not immediately attended to and was snubbed with the retort that ‘people from hilly areas make unnecessary noise’. Such remarks, obviously, added insult to injury and were least expected of professionals on public duty,” she added.

“When the appellant is shown to be a poor lady from rural background, her contribution in ensuring the family making both ends meet also deserves due consideration... the amount of compensation ought to be of such level as to provide relief in reasonable monetary terms to the appellant...”

Justice Maheshwari further said, “We are of the view that the appellant deserves to be allowed further an amount of Rs 10 lakh towards compensation, over and above the amount awarded by the state commission and the national commission... it is also considered proper to grant three months’ time to the respondents (hospital and doctors) to make the requisite payment and else, to bear the burden of interest.”

Consumer bill to fix adulteration, false ads: Experts

Source: DNA dated 21.12.2018

Mumbai: Getting away with defective products and misleading advertisements is set to become challenging for makers and retailers/etailers of fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG), durables, electronics, automobiles etc.

The Lok Sabha on Thursday passed the long-pending Consumer Protection Bill 2018, paving way for effective protection of consumer rights and safeguarding their interests.

Speaking to DNA, Praveen Khandelwal, secretary general, Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT), said, “It is noteworthy that the bill has been passed by the Lok Sabha. Hopefully, it would be passed in the Rajya Sabha soon.”

The bill, besides strengthening the rights of the consumers and keep a watch on misleading advertisements, will also check adulteration.

The development is crucial especially in the current scenario wherein consumers are forced to go through the hassles of getting defective products replaced and/ or claiming refunds in addition to misleading deceptive ads.

The bill puts the liability of product quality on manufacturers, said Pritee Shah, chief general manager, Consumer Education and Research Centre (CERC). While e-commerce marketplaces will be responsible for sale of counterfeit products, celebrities will also be responsible, along with advertisers, for endorsing a product.

“Manufacturers will have to be diligent. They will have to mandatorily recall faulty products. In the case of misleading ads, companies will have to withdraw advertisements and bring in corrective advertisements. Celebrities will not be able to blindly endorse products,” said Shah.

When contacted, executives from HUL, ITC, Dabur, Marico, Mondelez, Godrej, Samsung, LG and Panasonic were not available for comment.

It certainly is a necessary a wake-up call for consumer goods makers to become more responsible, said N Chandramouli, chief executive officer, TRA Research, a brand insight company. The onus gets clearly pinned on the company, but more importantly, if convicted, the brand’s trust also will get impacted.

“Consumer should be the ultimate yardstick. However, there can be truant customers too, and companies will have to deal with a small portion of such false claims. All-in-all, if the companies become more responsible towards consumers, it is a good move,” said Chandramouli, adding: “We’ve all been taken in by claims like ‘strongest’, ‘best’, ‘improved’, ‘extra iron added’ etc so far. Now it’s time for brands to be cautious about claims like this,” said Chandramouli.

Lok Sabha passes Consumer Protection Bill

Source: DNA dated 21.12.2018

Three years after its introduction, the landmark Consumer Protection Bill finally got the Lok Sabha’s nod on Thursday. All 11 members, who participated in the brief discussion, supported provisions of the Bill, but apprehended that it would encroach upon the powers of the states in making appointments to Consumer Commissions. They also proposed that Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions should have judicial members.

The Bill is aimed at providing a mechanism for redressal of complaints regarding defects in goods and deficiency in services, thus strengthening the rights of consumers. The proposed law that replaces the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, will now go to the Rajya Sabha for its approval.

Initiating the debate on the Bill, Pratima Mondal of the Trinamool Congress said the proposed Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions should have judicial members.

She stressed that endorsement of products by celebrities should be totally barred, as they do not have the expertise to verify claims made in advertisements. Tathagata Satpathy from the BJD, said legislation like these should have a definite time-frame for review in the House.

The new provisions state that consumers can now seek penalties against misleading advertisements and their endorsers. Most importantly, the proposed law covers e-commerce where it defines direct selling and electronic service provider. The Central government may prescribe rules for preventing unfair trade practices in e-commerce and direct selling.

The Bill also sets up a Central Consumer Protection Authority to promote, protect and enforce consumer rights and can issue safety notices for goods and services, order refunds, recall goods and rule against misleading advertisements. The Bill defines contracts as ‘unfair’ if they significantly affect the rights of consumers. It also defines unfair and restrictive trade practices and provides for mediation cells attached to District, State and National Commissions for out-of-court settlements.
Further, pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer has been increased wherein district courts can hear a case up to Rs 1 crore, state commission between Rs 1 crore and up to Rs 10 crore, and national commission above Rs 10 crore. Penalties have been increased from including imprisonment up to three years, or a fine not less than Rs 25,000 extendable to Rs 1 lakh, or both, in non-compliance of Commission orders. Earlier, the fine was only up to Rs 10,000.
Under the Bill, aggrieved consumers can also file complaints through email.
Replying to queries by MPs, Union Minister for Consumer Affairs Ramvilas Paswan said the Bill will establish authorities for timely and effective administration and settlement of consumers’ disputes. He said the legislation has not been amended for three decades and need changes for strengthening consumer rights.

Student is a consumer, can file complaint

Source: Times of India dt. 10th November 2019, p.5

Student is a consumer, can file complaint

Jehangir B Gai

Aditya was a student studying in Oberoi International School, Goregaon. As the school had refused to allow him to appear for his exams, his mother filed a complaint before the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that a student cannot be considered a consumer. Aditya’s mother challenged this order and argued her own appeal in person. She pointed out there were several precedents in which a student had been held to be a consumer.

The Maharashtra State Commission pointed out that conduct of exams by statutory boards was not considered to be a service-,but in the absence of any legal binding, it would be incorrect to hold a student is not a consumer. Besides, there were several rulings of the National Commission as well as the Supreme Court where it had been held that failure to adhere to the guidelines of the University Grants Commission constituted an unfair trade practice, and suitable relief was granted to students under the Consumer Protection Act.

In its order of November 1 delivered by Justice A P Bhangale for the bench along with A K Zade, the Commission held since the law did not debar a student from redressing his grievance before the consumer fora, the complaint ought to have been adjudicated on merit. The complaint was remanded back to the Forum to decide whether or not the school was responsible for deficiency in service or unfair trade or restrictive trade practice.

Conclusion: A student can approach the consumer forum against educational institutions which make bogus claims of affiliation, commit breach of University Grants Commission guidelines, misrepresent about the available infrastructure, or any other grievance which can be termed deficiency in service or unfair or restrictive trade practice.

(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt.of India's National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His email is jehangir.gai.columnist@outlook.in)

Persons flying for business are not consumers according to Central Mumbai District Consumer Forum

You are not a consumer when flying for business, says forum 

Hindustan Times (Mumbai)
Jan 7 2014
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, defines a consumer as any person who buys goods or services or one who uses such goods a person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose purpose excludes the use for earning livelihood the...read more... 

Consumers win cases if they stay the course

Rebecca Samervel, Times of India | Oct 23, 2013

Service providers, be they builders or car makers, have the time and money to drag consumer cases till the national commission. But this should not discourage aggrieved consumers to file cases at district forums or appeal at the state commission. Because, experts say most state rulings favouring consumers are upheld at the national level.

“Many of the appeals are meritless. When the state commission passes a reasoned order, the national commission does not interfere with it,” said consumer activist Dr M S Kamath. “Over 90% of appeals by builders challenging state commission orders are dismissed,” he said.

An RTI query revealed last year that of 24,278 consumer complaints received by the six district forums in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region in 15 years, housing led with 7,499.

Consumer lawyer Uday Wavikar said the majority of appeals by service providers at the national level are not successful. “The matter that concerns the consumer the most is the time such an appeal will take. If two courts have decided in favour of one party, the third court should not even admit it unless there has been any perversion of law. Many appeals are filed on technical grounds,” he said.

The national commission is the last stop for aggrieved parties within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and its orders can only be appealed in the Supreme Court (SC). Even here, consumers often win. Wavikar cites the case of Sanjay Berde that reached the SC. Berde (55) had booked a flat in Shivaji Park in 2004. “The builder refused to hand over possession. Due to escalating prices and a change in government polices, he wanted to make more money on the same flat. So, he asked me to take a refund,” Berde said. The state and national commissions ruled in Berde's favour, as did the SC.

Limited Medical Negligence

Source: The Times of India

Surgeon to pay for ‘incomplete’ prescription

By Rebecca Samervel, TNN | Jan 29, 2013

The country's top consumer commission has held a Delhi doctor guilty of "limited medical negligence" for verbally advising, instead of prescribing in writing, the use of eye drops to a patient who lost his vision following its prolonged application.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on January 16 upheld an order of the Delhi consumer commission that directed Dr Vivek Pal to pay the patient, Delhi-based Devinder Singh Gupta, compensation of Rs 50,000. In its decision, the apex body faulted the eye surgeon for not spelling out in writing the "dosage and duration of the medicine". And at the same time, it blamed Gupta for not turning up for follow-ups and for continuing the drops despite being provided just one vial by the doctor.

The case dates to June 1993, when Gupta consulted Dr Pal for a problem in his left eye. The doctor diagnosed it as an "innocuous growth" called Pytreygium and advised its removal through minor surgery lest it get bigger. Dr Pal assured that the eye would be normal in five days. After the surgery was conducted at the doctor's clinic, Gupta was prescribed medicine for local application along with oral medication. Soon after however, he felt pain and irritation in the left eye as it became red.

A suffering Gupta returned to Dr Pal. In one consultation, the surgeon told him to continue the local application medication, Mitomycine-C. In another, he changed the medication. But all through, Gupta alleged, his eye kept worsening, leading to loss of vision.

Finally, Gupta consulted another ophthalmologist, who informed him that the left eye had become very dry as Mitomycine-C was "wrongly prescribed". Gupta was asked to consult other specialists who too confirmed that the eye was damaged due to the medicine's protracted use. He was warned to stop all medicines.

Alleging that the eye damage adversely affected his professional and personal life, Gupta filed a complaint with the Delhi consumer commission in 1995.

Denying the accusations, Dr Pal maintained that the surgery went satisfactorily. He said that Gupta was asked to use a medicine for local application and, once the eye was healed after a week, Mitomycine-C (an injection converted into eye drops) for two weeks. This, he added, was prescribed to prevent recurrence of Pytreygium. Dr Pal continued that Gupta was told to use it thrice daily and verbally warned that its overuse for over two weeks could be harmful.

According to Dr Pal, Gupta did not pay heed: the patient did not return for further check-ups to him, continued using the eye drops, and took treatment from other doctors. Only in March 1994 did Gupta return to Dr Pal.

In August 2006, the Delhi commission held the doctor guilty of "limited negligence" and ordered him to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation. It noted that the fact that Gupta could not be excused for "contributory negligence" was a mitigating circumstance for awarding the compensation.

Nevertheless, dissatisfied with the damages, Gupta filed an appeal for enhancement.

The national commission observed this month that since the doctor had converted just one vial of Mitomycine-C injection into eye drops the indication was for its limited use for about two weeks and not several months. "It was under these circumstances that the state commission held the respondent (doctor) guilty of only 'limited medical negligence' for not having put down in writing the dosage and duration of the medicine in the prescription slip," the national body said.

The aggrieved person, Delhi-based Devinder Singh Gupta, lost his eyesight in one eye after prolonged use of eye drops prescribed by Dr Vivek Pal. The national consumer commission upheld a state commission's ruling that said Dr Vivek Pal was guilty of 'limited medical negligence' since he had failed to put in writing the dosage and duration of the medicine. He was ordered to pay Gupta Rs 50,000 as compensation.