CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986

CASE STUDIES

RUTU LADAGE VS SONY ERICSSON

CASE
The customer, Rutu Ladage, purchased the Sony Ericsson mobile phone (model no. C-903) for Rs10000 from a store in Vile Parle in May 2010, but within a month she found numerous problems with the instrument. The buttons, speakers and software of the handset were in a bad shape from the time of purchase of the handset .She approached Sony Ericssons service centre to get the phone repaired and was asked by the service provider to deposit it there. However, when she collected the phone some days later she realised that the problems continued. Subsequently, Rutu approached the service Centre eight times, but the handset was not repaired. As she had a warranty for the phone, she asked the firm to compensate the loss or provide her a new handset. But again she was asked to hand over the phone to the service centre. Aggrieved by their attitude, Rutu filed a complaint against the firm with the consumer forum in March 2011. The forum ruled that the company had terribly failed to provide proper services to the customer and hence directed it to pay the compensation.

CONCLUSION:
Sony Ericsson, the mobile phone maker, has been ordered by a consumer panel to pay more than Rs13000 as compensation for a faulty handset sold to a customer more than three years ago. According to the order of the Mumbai Suburban Additional District Consumer Redressal Forum, the firm will have to pay the customer Rs10000 with 9% interest from May 16, 2010, and an additional Rs3000 for the mental agony she suffered.

NANDLAL THAKKAR VS COURIER AGENCY

CASE
Nandlal Thakkar sent a wooden temple to his acquaintance in New Briten in the US through two courier services - DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd and S Service. He paid Rs 12,500 towards courier charges in February 2008. But the parcel did not reach to its destination in time, and when it reached, the wooden temple was found in broken condition. Thakkar moved the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Gujarat and Thakkar sued both the courier agencies he claimed that the wooden temple was broken during transit, and the delivery also got delayed. Hence he should be compensated for the loss and the courier services should be asked to pay for deficiency in service. The consumer court asked the courier services to return Rs 12,500 with 9% interest since 2008. But the consumer court concluded that though the value of the consignment was Rs 33,500 as per the claimant, but since he did not declare the type of consignment before the courier service at the time of booking, as per the law, he was entitled to get only $100.

CONCLUSION
The commission, however, asked the courier services to pay him Rs 1,000 towards cost of litigation, but the consumer failed to recover the value of the goods only because he did not disclose what he was sending in the parcel. A consumer court has asked courier services to return courier charges for late delivery of parcel in the US, but did not ask them to return the value of broken temple in the parcel because the consumer had not declared the type of consignment at the time of booking.

MURUGAN VS ST ISABELS HOSPITAL

CASE
M Murugan of Choolaimedu approached the Chennai (South) District Consumer Redressal Forum in 2006 claiming that in December 2005, he got admitted to the hospital with complaints of fever and vomiting. Various tests were conducted and the reports said his blood group was B Negative and tests

conducted for dengue were also negative. There was blood transfusion based on this report but it failed to bring any improvement in his health. Murugan then went to another private hospital, where to his shock the blood tests showed he has B Positive group blood and that he was also suffering from dengue. He also got a test done in a separate lab and confirmed that his blood group was indeed B Positive. The district forum, after analysing the material available, allowed the complaint and ordered payment of compensation by the hospital. In its defense, the hospital said even if the contending reports are accepted, there was no harm in transfusion of B Negative blood to those with B Positive blood. But this contention was dismissed by the State consumer forum. As regards the dengue report, the hospital said the infection manifests only after 5 to 7 days and the negative result could be due to the fact that the tests were done a little earlier than this period. In this, the court said no medical literature has been placed before it to back this claim and hence it cannot decide on its correctness.

CONCLUSION
The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has upheld the order of a lower forum that pulled up the St Isabels Hospital here for medical negligence and ordered monetary compensation for the aggrieved. Citing a Supreme Court verdict, the bench comprising president Justice R Regupathi and Judicial Member J Jayaram said there is negligence and deficiency of service on part of the hospital. Therefore, it upheld the order of the district forum which directed payment of a compensation of Rs 30,000 that he spent at the hospital for treatment, Rs 70,000 for the treatment in the other private hospital and a further sum of Rs 25,000 as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service. .

KADIR KHAN VS HUL

CASE

The case dates back to August 2011, when Kadir Khan, a Malad resident, bought the water filter worth Rs1000. In his complaint, Khan said since the filter was a faulty one, he couldnt use it. He tried to get in touch with the company a number of times, but the company failed to respond. Aggrieved with the companys attitude, Khan filed a complaint against HUL with the consumer forum in December 2011.

CONCLUSION
In its reply, HUL claimed that they had deployed personnel to attend to the complainants problem a number of times, but as the personnel couldnt find anyone at the complainants home. The forum added that since HUL had circulated a faulty piece in the market for sale, a compensation of Rs5,000 would have to be awarded to the complainant, apart from replacement of the faulty appliance with a new filter. The suburban district consumer forum has penalised Hindustan Unilever Limited for selling a faulty water filter to a customer. The company has been asked to pay the customer Rs5000 and replace the filter with a new one

RITU GAGNEJA VS INSURANCE FIRM

CASE
Ritu Gagneja, resident of Sector 46, was provided a mediclaim policy on opening an account with the Oriental Insurance Company. While she paid the premiums for the policy that would entitle her a refund of Rs 3 lakh for the treatment of any disease, Ritu claimed that the company rejected her mediclaim on insubstantial grounds. In the same year, Ritu was diagnosed with Cholelithion Billiary Colic C and was operated for the same at Dharam Hospital. After she was discharged, Ritu approached the insurance company for reimbursement. However, the mediclaim was denied by the opposition party saying that the claim fell in the Exclusion Clause of two years as enshrined in the policy conditions. Also, the insurance company alleged that the treatment of the said disease came under the two-year exclusion clause, which is why the claim was non-payable.

CONCLUSION
The company failed to substantiate their allegations in the forum, where the complaint was accepted on the fact that the firm couldn't prove that the disease was included in the exclusion clause.

The forum has ordered the firm to compensate the complainant for causing mental agony within a month, failing which it would be held liable for paying the total amount with a 12 per cent interest. The UT District Consumer Forum has penalised an insurance firm for wrongfully rejecting the mediclaim of a city resident. The insurance firm has been directed to reimburse the claim amount of Rs 30,000 along with the compensation amount and the litigation cost.