Class Ii

REDRESSAL MECHANISM
DISTRICT STATE NATIONAL SUPREME

FORUM COMMISSION COMMISSION COURT
•Original •Jurisdiction •Jurisdiction •Appellate

Jurisdiction Original Original Jurisdiction
•Up to 20 •Appellate •Appellate
Lakhs •Revisional •Revisional
•Decision •From 20 Lakhs •1 Crore and
within 3 to 1 Crore above
months or 5 •Decision within
months if 90 days form
Lab. Test the date of
required admission
WHAT RELIEFS COULD BE
ORDERED
 REMOVAL OF DEFECTS/ REPLACEMENT OF GOODS/
REFUND OF PRICES
 REMOVAL OF DEFECTS OR DEFICIENCIES IN SERVICE
 STOPPAGE OF UNFAIR OR RESTRICTIVE TRADE
PRACTICE
 WITHDRAWAL OF HAZARDOUS GOODS
 PAY COST FOR ISSUE OF ADVERTISEMENT TO
CORRECT MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENT
 AWARD OF COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE AS
WELL AS MENTAL AGONY
 AWARD OF COSTS
TIME & PLACE OF COMPLAINT &
APPEALS
 Sec. 24A: It is to be filed within two years of the
date of cause of action
 A complaint can be filed at:
 Where the Opposite Party resides, carries on
business or works for gain or has a branch office
 The cause of action wholly or in part arose
 Sec. 15,19 & 23: Appeals either to the State

Commission or the National Commission or
Supreme Court within 30days from date of the
order
SPECIAL PROVISION RELATING TO APPEALS
 An amount of:
 Half of the award or 25,000/- whichever is less is
to be deposited in case of appeal to the State
Commission
 Half of the award or 35,000/- whichever is less in
case of an appeal to the National Commission
 Half of the award or 50,000/- whichever is less in
case of an appeal to the Supreme Court
Dismissal of Complaints
 Sec. 26: Frivolous or Vexatious complaints

& Award of cost up to Rs. 10,000/-
 13(2)(c): Due to absence of the
Complainant
EXECUTION OF ORDER AND
PENALTY
 Orders passed by the Forum or Commissions are final, if no
appeal is filed
 In case of Interim Order
 Attachment and sale after 3 months
 In case of Final Order
 Recovery by District Collector upon issue of certificate
as arrear of Land Revenue
 Penalties for non-compliance (applicable to complainant/OP)
 Not less than 1 Month up to 3 Years imprisonment
 Fine not less than 2,000 up to 10,000
 Or both
INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION V.
V.P.SHANTHA, (1995), CPJ 1
 Services rendered by a medical practitioner for a
fee is ‘service’ within the Act
 Even if the employer, Insurance Company pays
for it, still it would be service
 Where in a Govt. or non-govt. hospital/NH some
pay and others do not, all would be treated as
‘consumer’ (including those who do not pay)
 A token payment for registration is not enough
to bring the hospital/NH in to the definition of
‘service’
Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital V. Bhupesh
Khurana & Others (Date of Judgment 13.2.2009 by
Supreme Court)
`Deficiency in service - Dental College, on mis-
representation about its affiliation and recognition,
admitting students to four years BDS course -Allegation
of charging capitation fee
HELD: Institute was neither affiliated to the University nor

recognized by Dental Council of India as was claimed in
the advertisement - National Commission rightly held
that there was total misrepresentation tantamounting to
unfair trade practice and there was deficiency in service
- Complainants would be entitled to compensation as
awarded by National Commission as also Rs.1 lakh each
additionally - They would further be paid Rs. 1 lakh each
by Institute as litigation costs.
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh
V. Jaspal Singh & Ors.
(DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 29.5.09 by Supreme Court)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Medical negligence - Patient with 50% burn
injuries - Transfusion of mismatched blood at hospital - Deterioration of
condition, leading to death - Complaint alleging medical negligence against
hospital and its staff - Forums below holding hospital and its staff liable
to pay compensation - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Hospital's
breach of duty in mismatched blood transfusion contributed to the death of
the lady - Wrong blood transfusion is an error which no hospital/doctor
exercising ordinary care would have made - It is not an error of
professional judgment but a sure instance of medical negligence.
M/s. Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia,

Date of judgement 25 -3 -1998.
(A) Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S.2(1)(d)(ii), S.14 - CONSUMER

PROTECTION - WORDS AND PHRASES - Consumer - Definition of - Is wide
and include not only person who hires or avails services - But also beneficiary
of such services other than person who hires or avails services - Child
admitted and treated in hospital by doctor - Child as well as his parents would
be "Consumer" - Awarding compensation to both of them for injury each one of
them has sustained - Is proper.
Inacia P Carvalho v. Desk to Desk Courier and Cargo Ltd.
(2001, National Commission)
A Consumer is entitled to compensation for the loss and damage
caused to him owing to the negligence of the opposite party in spite of the
‘limited liability’ clause in the contract, the object of the legislation would be
frustrated if the courier company gets away with the limited liability of Rs. 100
Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha

(DATE OF JUDGEMENT:4.9.09, Supreme Court)
Board is a statutory body and conduct of examination is a statutory duty. The

examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of
any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the
examination. The Board is not a `service provider' and a student who takes an
examination is not a `consumer' and consequently, complaint under the Act is
not maintainable against the Board. The Board is not carrying on any
commercial, professional or service-oriented activity. No `benefit' is conferred
nor any `facility' provided by the Board for any consideration.
THANK YOU
bijoymohapatra@hotmail.com

Class Ii

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Class Ii

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Class Ii

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REDRESSAL MECHANISM

DISTRICT STATE NATIONAL SUPREME

•Original •Jurisdiction •Jurisdiction •Appellate

 Sec. 15,19 & 23: Appeals either to the State

 Sec. 26: Frivolous or Vexatious complaints

HELD: Institute was neither affiliated to the University nor

M/s. Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia,

(A) Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S.2(1)(d)(ii), S.14 - CONSUMER

Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha

Board is a statutory body and conduct of examination is a statutory duty. The

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.