{"id":263163,"date":"2022-03-05T09:00:34","date_gmt":"2022-03-05T03:30:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=263163"},"modified":"2022-03-11T09:32:12","modified_gmt":"2022-03-11T04:02:12","slug":"do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/","title":{"rendered":"Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognisance of medical negligence complaints? Ker HC analyses"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Kerala High Court: <\/strong>N. Nagaresh, J., decided whether medical service would fall within the ambit of Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 unless of course the service is free of charge or is under a contract of personal service.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Background<\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Doctors practising Modern Medicine in Kannur filed the present petition seeking to quash the orders of District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, as sans jurisdiction and hence illegal.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">They sought to declare that the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of complaints in respect of medical negligence and deficiency in medical service as a medical profession and practice and practice does not come within the purview of term \u2018service\u2019 defined under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Contention<\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Senior Counsel assisted by the counsel for the petitioners argued that the medical service\/practice is not included in the illustrations in the inclusive definition of the term &#8216;service&#8217; under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and hence the intention of the Parliament is clear that the Parliament did not want to include medical services\/profession within the purview of the term &#8216;service&#8217;. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the Draft Bill of the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019 had included health sector among the illustrations of facilities that are treated as &#8216;service&#8217; in Section 2(42) of the new Act. However, the health sector was removed from among the illustrations under Section 2(42). The obvious reason is that the lawmakers intended to exclude medical service\/profession from the purview of the new Act.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Analysis<\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">High Court noted the argument of the petitioners that a complaint in respect of medical negligence or deficiency in medical service was not maintainable before the District or State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for the reason that Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not take within its ambit the medical profession\/medical services.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Supreme Court\u2019s decision in <em>Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, <\/em>(1995) 6 SCC 651, considered the question whether medical negligence\/deficiency in the medical services would fall within the ambit of \u2018service\u2019 and it was held that the services rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment, both medical and surgical would fall within the ambit of \u2018service\u2019 as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, 1986.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Act, 1986 was substituted by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, wherein the term &#8216;service&#8217; is defined under Section 2(42).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Further, it was added that both Sections 2(42) of the Act, 2019 and Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, 1986 more or less have the same meaning and implications. The only difference is that Section 2)42) of the Act, 2019 is more descriptive and takes specifically in the banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">High Court opined that Section 2(42) of the Act would show that the Parliament intended to specifically underline that, certain services like Banking, Financing, Insurance, transport, etc., which are in the nature of public utility services, would come within the purview of services.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The said definition is inclusive and not exhaustive. Therefore, all services which are made available to potential users would fall under Section 2(42), except those services rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service. The words \u201cbut not limited to\u201d appearing in Section 2(42) clarifies the intention of the Parliament.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Hence,<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">Medical services therefore would indeed fall within the ambit of Section 2(42), unless of course the service is free of charge or is under a contract of personal service.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Bench added that, the District Commission considered the issue of maintainability of the complaint and noted that there was no difference to the meaning of \u2018service\u2019 in the old Act and the new Act. Therefore, District Commission rejected the objections as to the maintainability of the complaint.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even the State Commission held that since no conscious change in the definition of \u201cservice\u201d was made in the new Act, the petitioner\u2019s contention that Health Sector had been deliberately excluded by the Parliament while enacting the new law, could not be accepted.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">High Court dismissed the petition in view of the above. [Dr Vijil v. Ambujakshi T.P., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/K3piW13Z\"><b>2022 SCC OnLine Ker 863<\/b><\/a>, decided on 10-2-2022]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Advocates before the Court:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Petitioners:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">By Advocates:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>RENOY VINCENT<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>ARUN ROY<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>HELEN P.A.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Respondents:<\/p>\n<p>By Advocates:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>SRI.MANU S, ASGI<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>SRI.V.GIREESH KUMAR, CGC<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court: N. Nagaresh, J., decided whether medical service would fall within the ambit of Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[14601,32035,18321,2523,29785,42834,3485,2787],"class_list":["post-263163","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-consumer","tag-consumer-fora","tag-consumer-protection-act","tag-Kerala_High_Court","tag-law","tag-legal-news","tag-medical_negligence","tag-service"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognisance of medical negligence complaints? Ker HC analyses | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of medical negligence complaints?\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognisance of medical negligence complaints? Ker HC analyses\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of medical negligence complaints?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-03-05T03:30:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-03-11T04:02:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/KeralaHC-e1521442636157.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/\",\"name\":\"Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognisance of medical negligence complaints? Ker HC analyses | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-03-05T03:30:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-03-11T04:02:12+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of medical negligence complaints?\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognisance of medical negligence complaints? Ker HC analyses\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognisance of medical negligence complaints? Ker HC analyses | SCC Times","description":"Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of medical negligence complaints?","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognisance of medical negligence complaints? Ker HC analyses","og_description":"Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of medical negligence complaints?","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-03-05T03:30:34+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-03-11T04:02:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/KeralaHC-e1521442636157.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/","name":"Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognisance of medical negligence complaints? Ker HC analyses | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-03-05T03:30:34+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-11T04:02:12+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of medical negligence complaints?","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/05\/do-district-and-state-consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-take-cognizance-of-medical-negligence-complaints\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Do District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions do not have jurisdiction to take cognisance of medical negligence complaints? Ker HC analyses"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":203359,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/matters-of-medical-negligence-in-the-absence-of-allegations-of-fraud-or-forgery-are-amenable-to-the-jurisdiction-of-consumer-fora\/","url_meta":{"origin":263163,"position":0},"title":"Matters of medical negligence, in the absence of allegations of fraud or forgery, are amenable to the jurisdiction of consumer fora","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 9, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A Division Bench of S.M. Kantikar and Dinesh Singh, Members, allowed an appeal filed against the order of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby the appellant\u2019s petition was dismissed at the stage of maintainability itself. The appellant had filed a complaint against the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":172114,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/29\/jurisdiction-consumer-forum-not-ousted-even-party-filed-suit-matter-civil-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":263163,"position":1},"title":"Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court","author":"Saba","date":"November 29, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: The grievance of the petitioner in a recent case before the Commission was that appellants\/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":220929,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/16\/ncdrc-consumer-protection-fora-do-not-enforce-fundamental-rights-they-do-not-exercise-jurisdiction-of-high-courts-or-supreme-court-under-arts-226-or-32\/","url_meta":{"origin":263163,"position":2},"title":"NCDRC | Consumer Protection fora does not enforce fundamental rights, they do not exercise jurisdiction of HC or SC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 16, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Bench of Dr S.M. Kantikar (Presiding member) and Dinesh Singh (Member) dismissed the revision petition and asked the complainant to seek a remedy in a competent civil court as per the law. In the present case, the dispute arose between O.P Thakur (Complainant)\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":247260,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/17\/consumer-protection-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":263163,"position":3},"title":"NCDRC | Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides for hierarchy of Consumer Fora to deal with consumer complaints, depending upon pecuniary value of complaint; Complaint filed to demand disproportionate compensation only to inflate value of complaint &#8212; Dismissed","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 17, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) while addressing the complaint reiterated the settled position of law, expressed that, Section 58 of the Act provides that the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint where value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":176373,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/15\/centre-submit-comprehensive-status-report-compliance-consumer-protection-act-1986\/","url_meta":{"origin":263163,"position":4},"title":"Centre to submit comprehensive status report on compliance of Consumer Protection Act, 1986","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 15, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: After a 3-member committee headed by former Supreme Court judge, Justice Arijit Pasayat, filed it\u2019s report on the facilitating infrastructural improvements in National\/State Consumer Fora, the 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr. DY Chandrachud, JJ asked the Central Government to file a comprehensive\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":364810,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/27\/andhra-pradesh-insurer-not-necessary-party-in-medical-negligence-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":263163,"position":5},"title":"Andhra Pradesh High Court| Insurer not a necessary or proper party in medical negligence consumer complaints; impleadment rejected","author":"Arunima","date":"October 27, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The petitioner, along with other doctors from Yashoda Hospitals, was arrayed as an opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur. The complainant alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service during treatment at the hospital.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"insurer not necessary party in medical negligence","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/insurer-not-necessary-party-in-medical-negligence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/insurer-not-necessary-party-in-medical-negligence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/insurer-not-necessary-party-in-medical-negligence.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/insurer-not-necessary-party-in-medical-negligence.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263163","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=263163"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263163\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=263163"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=263163"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=263163"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}