Table of Contents
Introduction
Purchase of good and services has become an unavoidable part of our day to day lives. Purchase or hire any goods and service is essentially based on trust and if it is failing it can cause a monetary loss to physical harm.
Consumer protection Act 1986, object is to provide speedy relief to such breach of trust or negligence.
There are 3 Tribunals has been established for consumer protection
1.The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF),
2.The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC), and
3.The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
Cases
Karanatka power transmission corporation vs. Ashok Iron works
In this case, Supreme court held that a corporate body is included in the meaning of ‘person’ in section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It repeated the position of Lord Watson in Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps that the word “includes” is generally used to enlarge the meaning of the word but on the other hand, used to say “mean and include”, in which case what follows is an complete explanation. The interpretation depends on the text, context, and objective of the Act. It was held that the section never intended to exclude juristic persons from its purview and the definition is all in nature.
In Southern Petrochemical Industries that the word “supply” is not the same as “sale” and in the context of electricity, it would be a provision of service as under section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Act.
Indian Medical Association vs. V P shantha and others
In this case of deficiency of medical service, the court held that the services rendered by a medical professional fall within the scope of ‘services’ under the section 2(1)(o) of the Act. It rejected the contention that a medical practitioner, being a professional and falling under the scope of Indian Medical Council Act, stands excluded from the Consumer Protection Act.
Moreover, it held that provision of a token fee as for the hospital administrative purposes, would not include an otherwise free service within the area of the definition of services. Also, the cost of the services paid by the employer or the insurance company would be deemed similar to paying for the service by the consumer itself.
Arvind shah vs. Kamlaben Kushwaha
In this case, the complainant alleged that his son died due to the administration of a wrong treatment by the doctor. The State Commission upholding negligence provided a compensation of five lakh rupees.
In appeal, the National Commission observed that the two prescriptions that were available on record neither contained any description of the symptoms that the patient was experiencing nor did it have any preliminary vital information that a doctor is necessary to check, as per the guidelines and regulation of the Medical Council of India or the concerned State Medical Council, like body temperature, blood pressure, pulse rate, prior medical history. If there was further tests were required for the diagnosis, it was also necessarily to be mentioned. The commission, following the case of Samira Kohli v Dr Prabha Manchanda [I (2008) CPJ 56 (SC)], held that failure to put such essentials in the prescription amounted to medical negligence. The Commission also noted that availability of such essentials, clinical observations and consent of the patient, point towards the care and diligence of the doctor and act as evidence against frivolous cases of medical negligence
Delhi development authority vs. D. C. SHARMA
In the case of an accidental double allotment of a plot by the Delhi Development Authority, the State Commission refused to accept the defence that the plot had not been provided to the complainant only for his failure to pay the cost. It was found from the records that the plot had been allocated to another person. It, therefore, ordered the Delhi Development Authority to either provide another plot of the same description to the appellant under the same conditions or pay the escalated price of the plot.
Conclusion
The Tribunals –
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF),
The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC), and
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
Along with the apex court Supreme court, have developed a better understanding of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. And strike a perfect balance between the demands of both sides.