Important Judgments of the Year 2022

                                                            PART-111

10.

Medicos Legal Action Group v Union of India|

SLP (Civil) 19374/2021

Decided on 22.4.2022

Head Note –Speech during Parliament debate is  of little relevance

SC Re-affirms its stand on Healthcare service under Consumer law

An organization "Medicos Legal Action Group",had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay As  Public Interest Litigation No. 58 Of 2021  and prayed before the court to declare  that services performed by healthcare service providers are not included within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

·         That parliamentary debates on the Consumer Protection Bill, 2018  preceding the 2019 Act led to exclusion of ‘healthcare’ from the definition of the term “service” as defined in the Bill.

·         That the Hon’ble Minister for Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, had stated on the floor of the Parliament that ‘healthcare’ had been deliberately kept out of the 2019 Act for the reasons cited therefor. This clearly indicates the parliamentary intent of not including ‘health care’ within the definition of “service” in the 2019 Act

SC HELD -

“We are of the clear opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioning Trust, that  the Hon’ble Minister having made certain statements in course of parliamentary debates on the Bill that preceded the 2019 Act, such statement is of little relevance. From the pleadings it is found that ‘health care’ was initially included in the definition of the term “service” appearing in the Bill but after extensive debates, the same was deleted. Mere repeal of the 1986 Act by the 2019 Act would not result in exclusion of 'health care' services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of the term 'service'” Held by Supreme Court

10.             

 Ibrat Faizan Versus Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited

Civil Appeal No. 3072 OF 2022;

Dated 13.05,2022

Head Note- The remedy against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal is to approach HC under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

This appeal before the SC is filed against the interim order passed by the High Court with a question whether High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order of National Commission

This is  well settled law that no writ petition lies against the order of the consumer commissions before the High Courts.Supreme Court in Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory [(2012) 8 SCC 5 24] judgment held on 6 August, 2012

As per Section 67 of the 2019 Act, the appeal remedy to the Supreme Court is available only with respect to orders passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 58. In other words, the appeal remedy to the Supreme Court under Article 136 in SLP is only with respect to the original orders passed by the NCDRC. No appeal can be filed against the order of National Commission which are passed in appeal.

S C held in its order dated 13.05,2022 

“No further appeal to this Court is provided against the order passed by the National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or under Section 58(1)(a)(iv) of the 2019 Act. In that view of the matter, the remedy which may be available to the aggrieved party against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or Section 58(1)(a) (iv) would be to approach the concerned High Court having jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India",

In the above case Hon’ble Supreme court has exercised its power under Art 142 of the constitution which is done in rare cases and given relief to both the parties ,home buyers as well as to the developers and brought an end to the litigation.   

11.                                                           

Harnek Singh vs Gurmit Singh SC

CA 4126-4127/2022

Date 18 May 2022 

Coram: Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha

Head Note -The opinion and findings of the MCI regarding the professional conduct of Respondent  have great relevance

The complainants before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission prayed for monetary compensation quantified at Rs. 62,85,160 from Surgeons, Doctors and Hospital for negligence and deficiency of services. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holds that negligence was not proved by the complainants

Apex Court in appeal, the complainants/appellants submitted that NCDRC gave its decision without referring to the MCI finding. Referring to the contents in the report of MCI, the bench observed that the opinion and findings of the MCI regarding the professional conduct of Respondent  have great relevance. It observed:

The above-referred findings of the MCI on the conduct of Respondent 1 leave no doubt in our mind that this is certainly a case of medical negligence leading to deficiency in his services.. We are of the opinion that the NCDRC has committed an error in reversing the findings of the SCDRC and not adverting to the evidence on record including the report of the MCI. The decision of the NCDRC deserves to be set aside and we hold that the complainants have made out a case of medical negligence against Respondents 1 and 2 and are entitled to seek compensation on the ground of deficiency of service.

12.             

Rajiv Shukla VS Gold Rush Sales And Services Ltd .SC

Civil appeal no. 5928 of 2022

Decided  on 8 September, 2022

Author: M.R. Shah

Bench: M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari

Head Note-Selling Old Model car as new amounts to deficiency in services & Unfair deal ,replacement ordered

Rajiv Shukla who booked the Vehicle Tata Victa  GX TC car  by paying booking amount to M/S Gold Crush Sales And Services A receipt was also issued for payment on the same day . Thereafter he paid Rs 5,30,000/-the entire amount of total consideration Though booking was made one year back but vehicle was delivered on 26,05.2006

Rajiv Shukla found that he has been delivered the old model of 2005 which has already run 1000/- km prior to delivery of vehicle to him.

On investigation it was revealed that the said car was used as Demo Test Drive Vehicle prior to delivery to Rajiv Shukla

 

SC order

Once complainant paid the full sale consideration for a new car, the duty was cast upon the dealer   to   supply   the   new   car   which   was   booked and if not done so, it would tantamount to dishonesty and unfair trade practice

It is further observed that National Commission   in   exercise   of   the   revisional   jurisdiction. under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Could not have interfered   with the evidence taken on record by lower commissions

The judgment and order passed  by   the   District  Forum   dated   29.04.2011  passed   in Consumer   Case   No.397   of   2007   confirmed  

                                                                       

 

 

 

.

 

 

Previous

Next