Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellantsare the hospital and doctors who treated the deceased. The appellants are under orders to pay of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs in OP 294/03 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. 2. The complainant is the widow of the deceased who died due to rat fever on 16-12-02. It is the case that on 10-12-02 the patient felt body pain and fever and on 13-12-02 he was admitted at the 1st opposite party hospital as inpatient. The deceased was treated by the opposite party doctors and certain lab tests and X-ray were taken. It is alleged that on15-12-02 the complainant wanted discharge of the patient for admitting him at Amrita Institute of Medical Science (AIMS) which was not allowed by the opposite parties. On 16-12-02 the 4th opposite party doctor told that the deceased is suspected to be infected by Jaundice and that there is no facility in the opposite party hospital for further treatment. The deceased was discharged at ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC.253/08 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of complaint and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the Scropio vehicle owned by him was stolen. According to him, it was entrusted for a few days to his close friend Sri.Sainudeen and the vehicle was parked in the car shed of the brother of Sainudeen. The vehicle was stolen on 29.10.06. The matter was intimated to the police. The police reported the case as untectable. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the complainant had sold the vehicle to one Sainudeen on 14.4.05 as per agreement. It is pointed out that one Mr.Ummer who is the brother of Sainudeen who has intimated the matter to the opposite parties. Investigation were conducted and the same showed that the complainant had sold the vehicle to Sainudeen on 14.4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants in Appeal-531/10 are the complainants and the appellants in Appeal-620/10 are the opposite parties/United India Insurance Company Ltd. in CC.161/01 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The opposite parties/appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,24,901/- along with compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainants. The complainants/appellants in A-531/10 have sought for interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amounts allowed. 2. The complainants are the insured and the consumer organization that has filed the complaint along with the insured. The 2nd complainant who is an official of the VSSC has claimed the amount incurred for the treatment expenses of his father the 3rd opposite party who is also covered by the group medical insurance policy. The policy coverage is Rs.1,50,000/-. The 2nd complainant had availed the policy on 16.3.99 for Rs.15,000/- as the sum insured himself ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/HDFC Insurance Company in CC.640/10 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants/opposite parties were ex-parte before the Forum. The appellants are under orders to pay the outstanding loan amount to the HDFC bank as per the policy. 2. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased died due to illness and not on any account of any accident which alone covered by the policy. 3. It is submitted that the file was misplaced and hence the appellant happened to be exparte before the Forum. In the circumstances and in view of the facts involved, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the opposite party pay Rs.8,000/- towards costs to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost the Forum will issue notice to the complainant and dispose of the case by a considered order. The case stands posted before the Forum below on 26.9....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Financiers in CC 19/10 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- towards the amount spent for the vehicle and also to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- and cost of Rs.3,000/- with interest at 12% on Rs.1,26,000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed a loan of Rs.2.2 lakh in December 2009 for the purchase of a goods carriage lorry. He also remitted 11,500/- on 8.12.09 and 9,500/- on 4.1.10. It is alleged that on 31.12.10 the vehicle was forcibly repossessed by the opposite parties. 3. It is the case of the complainant that he had not defaulted any instalment at the time of repossession. According to him, he had spent Rs. 1 lakh for purchasing the vehicle. He has sought for return of the vehicle and payment of Rs.1000/- per day till the date of delivery towards loss. 4. It is the case of the opposite parties that the complainant had de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the 3rd and 4th opposite parties in CC.163/09 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.600/- being the price of the liquor purchased and Rs.2000/- to each of the complainants as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost with interest at 9% from the date of the order. 2. It is the case of the complainants, 4 in number that on 3.6.2009 they purchased 12 bottles of Zingaro brand beer from the 4th opposite party outlet of the 3rd opposite party Beverages Corporation. They consumed 11 bottles of beer and thereafter started vomiting and had abdominal pain. They had to consult a doctor at DistrictHospital, Thrissur. It is alleged that the beer sold was of beyond the expiry date. It is seen that the bottles are manufactured in June, October and December 2007 and one bottle in March 2000 and one bottle in January 2008. It is also mentioned over the bottle as best before 6 months from the date of manufa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.213/09 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,23,000/- with interest at 6% from 20.1.2007 with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party was a close friend of the complainant and that on 1.6.2004 he convinced the complainant that he is starting 2 chitties with Rs.2.lakhs and Rs.1.lakh sala each. The complainant agreed to joined in the chitties and the monthly subscription as told was Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2000/- respectively. The amounts were collected from 10.6.2004 to 10.10.2004 from the complainant and thereafter he went to Kuwait and used to remit the subscription in the account of the opposite party in North Malabar Gramin Bank, Nileshwar Branch till 20.1.2001. Altogether he had paid a sum of Rs.1,23,000/- as monthly subscriptions. According to him he had also paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 05.08.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order. A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL The complaint filed under Section 12 and 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 1. The details of complaint in brief as follows : Complainant being the Journalist, RTI activist, Consumer Protection Activist and Social worker, filed this complaint against the opposite party manufacturers and suppliers of the Kohinoor Brand of Condoms, for not providing the right specification and indication of the same on the covers of condoms sold which is a branded item where basic facts have been suppressed the specification applicable to Indian have not been adhere. Selling of uniform size with other countries specifications to all the consumers in India is most dangerous matter causing Aids, dissatisfaction, wr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 09.08.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order. A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 1. The details of complaint in brief as follows : Complainant availed agricultural loan of Rs.24,000/- from 3rd opposite party in the year 1988 by depositing the title deeds of his property as security and after clearing the debts when the 3rd opposite party was demanded to release the title deeds through letter dated 23.4.08 without returning the documents, the 3rd opposite party wrote a letter on 5.5.08 stating that the complainant repaid the loan amount alone and issued No due certificate and relating to the documents it is stated it got mixed with other documents and to furnish details regarding the date of dep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.08.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1st complainant having Matiz Car bearing Registration No.TN-M-39-Q-6422 insured the same with the opposite party for the period from 18.10.05 to 17.10.06. On 3.7.06, the vehicle met with an accident by collusion with another vehicle and the car damaged badly. After reporting the accident the surveyor inspected the accident spot and assessed the damage. The car was left for service to the authorized service centre and the surveyor after final assessment recommended for the settlement of Rs.1,85,500/- on salvage loss and thereby the opposite party insisted for acceptance letter to that offer and the complainant agreed for the same. Till 18.10.06 the opposite party wa...
Tag this Judgment!