{"id":267062,"date":"2022-05-19T17:00:06","date_gmt":"2022-05-19T11:30:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=267062"},"modified":"2022-06-03T11:24:21","modified_gmt":"2022-06-03T05:54:21","slug":"medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/","title":{"rendered":"[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC"},"content":{"rendered":"

National Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): <\/strong>In an alleged medical negligence case, <\/strong>the Coram of R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr S.M. Kantikar, Member, reiterates that the \u201cConsumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck.\u201d<\/p>\n

An instant appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the appellant\/complainant for enhancement of compensation which was awarded by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.<\/p>\n

A small lump was noticed in the left breast of the complainant and the same was confirmed by scan\/mammography. Thereafter, the appellant went through a Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology test at respondent 1. Respondents 2 to 4 reported that there was no evidence of malignancy.<\/p>\n

Hence, on the basis of mammography and FNAC report the surgeon advised no further treatment as the lump was benign.<\/p>\n

It was alleged that the small lump of the complainant was grown in size, therefore she underwent the FNAC test again. Later, the complainant underwent left-sided mastectomy and her entire left breast along with the adjoining tissues were removed.<\/p>\n

Further, it was alleged that the wrong FNAC report was a root cause of the mastectomy, which otherwise could have been avoided and there was a complete cure. She suffered great pain and stress, and also incurred heavy expenses of about Rs.4,50,000\/- due to the alleged negligence of the respondents.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved with the above, the appellant filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission.<\/p>\n

What the State Commission hold?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026complaint is partly allowed holding that Op Nos. 1 to 4 are liable for the wrong report of FNAC test given by them to the complainant and consequently Op Nos. 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h4>\n

In Commission\u2019s view, it was the duty of the appellant\u2019s doctor to refer her to a surgeon for further treatment instead of relying on the FNAC report, but it was not done. Hence, no negligence or deficiency of the respondents was observed.<\/p>\n

In the opinion of the Coram, it was the pathologists at Anand Diagnostic Laboratory who reported FNAC as per reasonable skill and standard of practice (Bolam\u2019s Test).<\/p>\n

Supreme Court recently on 20 April 2022, in the Civil Appeal No.6507 of 2009, Dr. (Mrs.) Chanda Rani Akhouri V. Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi<\/em>, held that: –<\/p>\n

“A medical practitioner is not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another.”<\/p>\n

Hence, the appellant claiming enhancement of compensation of Rs 2 crore was highly inflated and unjustified.<\/p>\n

\u201cConsumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

In view of the above discussion, Coram held that it could not be concluded that respondents were negligent and the present matter was devoid of merit.[Sajidah Shukath v. Anand Diagnostic Laboratory, 2022 SCC OnLine NCDRC 53<\/b><\/a>, decided on 13-5-2022]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates before the Commission<\/strong><\/span>:<\/p>\n

For the Appellant: Ms. Neela Gokhale, Advocate<\/p>\n

For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Kejriwal, Advocate for R-1 R-2 to 4 Ex Parte vide order dt.27.08.2018<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

National Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): In an alleged medical negligence case, the Coram of R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr S.M. Kantikar, Member, <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":199533,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-267062","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies"],"yoast_head":"\n[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC\" \/>\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\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/\" \/>\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=\"2022-05-19T11:30:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-06-03T05:54:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.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=\"3 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\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/\",\"name\":\"[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-05-19T11:30:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-06-03T05:54:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC\"}]},{\"@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":"[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC | SCC Times","description":"[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC","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\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC","og_description":"[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-05-19T11:30:06+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-06-03T05:54:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/","name":"[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg","datePublished":"2022-05-19T11:30:06+00:00","dateModified":"2022-06-03T05:54:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC"}]},{"@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":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":247260,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/17\/consumer-protection-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":267062,"position":0},"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 — 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 "Case Briefs"","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":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":267062,"position":1},"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 "Case Briefs"","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":244408,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/25\/educational-institutions\/","url_meta":{"origin":267062,"position":2},"title":"NCDRC | Whether educational institutions and co-curricular activities such as swimming provided by them will be covered under Consumer Protection Act? Read on","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 25, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) addressed the issue of whether educational institutions fall under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The instant appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","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":237728,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/20\/ncdrc-builder-has-to-mention-the-date-of-delivery-of-possession-in-agreement-homebuyer-cannot-be-made-to-wait-for-possession-indefinietly\/","url_meta":{"origin":267062,"position":3},"title":"NCDRC | Builder has to mention the date of delivery of possession in agreement & failure to do so will be read against builder; Homebuyer cannot be made to wait for possession indefinitely","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 20, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC):\u00a0\u00a0A Division Bench of Dr S.M. Kantikar (Presiding Member) and Dinesh Singh (Member) held that, a homebuyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession. The instant appeal was preferred by the appellant under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","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":224289,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/17\/ncdrc-reconsideration-of-a-case-by-district-forum-though-warranted-must-not-be-directed-if-it-results-in-miscarriage-of-justice-to-complainant\/","url_meta":{"origin":267062,"position":4},"title":"NCDRC | Reconsideration of a case by District Forum, though warranted, must not be directed if it results in miscarriage of justice to complainant\u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 17, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A Coram of Justice R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dinesh Singh (Member), disposed of a case centered around a car and its defects. and due to its longevity, the car was not so feasible, at this stage in time, to remand back to the District\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","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":267062,"position":5},"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 "Case Briefs"","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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267062","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=267062"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267062\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/199533"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267062"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267062"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267062"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}