Scdrc Court January 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Prem Chand Vs. Dlf Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited and Anothe ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.12.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant purchased two Polices from the Opposite Parties viz. Policies No.000086550 and 000091522, after paying Rs.20,000/- and Rs.15,000/- on 26.09.2011 and 31.10.2011 respectively. It was stated that the Opposite Parties never delivered the aforesaid Policies to the complainant inspite of several verbal/telephonic requests. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties rather issued Policy lapse notices on 26.10.2012 and 30.11.2012 and did not pay any heed to the requests sent to them, to issue Policy documents, so that the complainant could pay the subsequent premiums on due dates. It was further stated that non-issuance of the Policies depriv...
The Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and Another Vs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite parties no.2 and 3 are appellants. The first respondent filed complaint seeking for direction to the appellants and the respondent no.2 to sanction pension and to pay a sum of Rs.25,0000/- towards compensation. 2. The case of the respondent no.1 is that he worked as Senior Clerk with Annapurna Printers which was merged with Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd and on attaining superannuation, the first respondent retired from his service on 1.09.2010 and subsequent to his retirement, the second respondent paid retirement benefits except the pension to the first respondent. The appellant rejected the claim and required the second respondent to submit application form in prescribed format for fixation of his pension. 3. The appellants contended that the first respondent submitted application for transfer of his PF and Pension account to the first appellant on 26.04.2011 and the second appellant transferred the PF and Pension accumula...
Dr. E. Regina D/O.E.Showri Reddy Occ:gynecologist and Obestrician Mana ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
T. Ashok Kumar, Member This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order in C.C.No.55/2010 dated 13-2-2012 on the file of District Forum, Medak at Sangareddy. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder: The brief facts of the complaint are as under: On 04-10-2008 the complainant approached opposite party doctor at Sangareddy town when she was third month pregnant and the OP doctor prescribed her some medicines and asked her to come on 17-10-2008 for check up. Accordingly on 17-10-2008 when the complainant went to the said opposite party doctor with complaint of spotting, she entrusted her to a male junior doctor and nurse for treatment who had no experience. After treatment she started bleeding and an injection was given to control the bleeding but to no avail and the foetus was aborted without her consent by collecting Rs.9,100/- from her. The complainant went into shock and was advised to go to Hyderabad for further treatm...
Navkar Marketing (i.) Pvt. Ltd, and Another Vs. Harnaam Kaur and Anoth ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This order will govern disposal of Appeal No FA/13/226 as well as Appeal No. FA/13/245, which have been preferred respectively by the O.P. / Navkar Marketing (I.) Pvt. Ltd., and complainant (Smt. Harnaam Kaur) of Complaint Case No.1077/2011 against the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum?), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant, has been allowed in part OPs have been directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service, interest, unfair trade practice and mental agony and also Rs.2,000/- towards Advocate fees and cost of litigation, within one month from the date of order. For the purpose of convenience, hereinafter in this order, the parties will be referred as per their original nomenclature in the complaint case. The original of this order be retained in the file of Appeal No. FA/13/226 and its copy be placed in the ...
Sushil Kanta Narula Vs. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited and A ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.284 dated 19.6.2009 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. The complaint was filed by complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against the opposite parties/respondents(hereinafter called the opposite parties) on the allegations that the complainant is registered nominee under the Life Insurance Policy No. 001558986 issued on 28.3.2008 for the life of her son Rajneesh Narula, who had died on 15.6.2008 during the subsistence of the policy. It has been further alleged that at the time of taking the policy, Rajneesh Narula was hale and hearty, aged about 36 years only having no health pro...
National Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. Amar Nath Garg
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. Amar Nath Garg “ complainant (respondent herein) took a mediclaim Insurance Policy (Individual) known as Hospitalization Benefit Policy from National Insurance Company Limited-opposite parties (appellants herein) in March, 2009. The policy covered the respondent and his wife, having its validity from March 16th, 2009 to March 15th, 2010 and was further renewed from March 16th, 2010 to March 15th, 2011. 2. The respondent falling ill, was diagnosed as Epigastric Hernia and was advised operation. The operation was conducted on June 23rd, 2010 for œLAPROSCOPIC INTRAPERITIONEAL ONLAY MESH? and respondent remained admitted in Max Hospital, Delhi from June 22nd, 2010 to June 24th, 2010 and spent Rs.1,16,529.90 on his treatment. 3. Respondent lodged claim which was repudiated by the appellants vide letter dated September 27, 2010 (Exhibit C-23) which compelled the respondent-complainant to file complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act...
The Manager, Ab Arogyadaan United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. S. Sampa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Forum which granted the relief for balance amount of the expenditure of that was incurred by the respondent for undergoing CABG at Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. 2. The respondent obtained Floater Medi Claim policy on 18.09.2008 for sum assured of Rs.5 lakh covering risk on his wife, son and him. The respondent got renewed the policy bearing number 050400/48/11/41/00000225 for three times and for the fourth time from 21.09.2011 to 20.09.2012 for the sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/-. The respondent was admitted at Yashoda Hospital on 11.06.2012 and he had undergone Cardiothoracic Minimal Access Surgery on 16.06.2012 and discharged on 18.06.2012. At the time of his hospitalization, on his request the TPA, third party administrator provided for arrangement of casteless facility to the extent of Rs.1,91,250/- as per agreed PPN Tariff by GIPSA . 3. The respondent incurred expenditure to an extent...
P.V. Prasanna Kumar and Another Vs. M/S Balaji Constructions, Rep. by ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
T. Ashok Kumar, Member Since both the appeals deal with similar facts and arising out of a common order, they are being disposed of by a common order: F.A.No.649/2012 is taken for discussion as a lead case. This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order in C.C.No.80/2011 dated 07-3-2012 on the file of District Forum, Kadapa. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder: The gist of the complaint is that the complainant purchased a flat 503 in 5th floor in Narayanadri Residency after coming across a colourful brochure of opposite party No.1 and registration of the same was done on 18-11-2009 and the said flat was occupied by the complainant on 14-2-2010. The opposite party No.1 had to provide certain amenities compulsorily and it was printed in the brochure that extra amenities would be provided for which the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- for extra provisions like Municipal drinking water, drainage connection, AP Transco Meter c...
Punjab State Electricity Board, Through Its Executive Engineer Vs. Bal ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.2, against the order dated 4.3.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and recovery of Rs.1,35,360/-, as mentioned in the notice dated 27.10.2008 (Ex.R-4) issued by the opposite parties, was quashed. 2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant was having an electric motor connection of 17.5 BHP, bearing account No.KF-571 that was running in his name in his agricultural land situated at Village Kamali, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib. He had been regularly paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties with regard to the said electric connection. On 13.10.2008, he filed complaint No.400 before the District Forum which was decided on 15.10.2008 with the direction to the opposite parties to restore his elec...
Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd, and Another Vs. I ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter called œthe opposite parties?) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 27.2.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.882 dated 19.12.2011 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to the Ops to pay interest @ 10% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- from the date of deposit i.e. 5.12.2003 till its realization, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant on the allegations that complainant No. 1 is running a small unit as sole proprietor for his livelihood by means of self employment and is father of complainant No. 2 as he wanted to establish his son in different business. It has been stated that the Ops released an advertisement for the sale of propert...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »