Ten important cases of 2023 -Part-111

Case 7

·         Case Title: Pushpa Verma & 2 Ors. vs Bhardwaj Nursing and Maternity Home Private Limited & 9 Ors. (NC) (Escorts at Mumbai & Medanta at Gurugram)

·         Consumer Case No. 257 Of 2015

·         Decided on 12^th June 2023

About Justice J S Verma

Justice J.S. Verma retired from the post of Chief Justice of India on 18.01.1998. Thereafter, he worked as Chairman, National Human Rights Commission, and India during 1999 to 2003.

Issue: Did the doctors display any negligence in the treatment of Justice J.S. Verma?

Facts

·         Justice J.S. Verma underwent coronary angiogram in 1993 and was diagnosed with asymptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD). He was treated at Fortis Escorts Hospital Mumbai, Bhardwaj Nursing & Maternity, Fortis Escorts Hospital Mumbai, and Medanta Hospital Gurugram where he expired on 22.04.2013.

·         Family of J S Verma filed a negligence case before NC.

NC Held

·         The physicians were duly qualified, and no negligence was evident at any point. The prescribed medication, as mentioned, was administered following consultation with expert doctors at UK DUBIGATRON.

·         Some facts were concealed by the family but there was no negligence on the part of doctors in giving proper treatment.

Material taken into consideration

·         Relevant literature & medical reports

·         Opinion of Delhi Medical Council & UK based doctors

 

Case Referred (Supreme Court Judgments)

·         Achyut Haribhai Khodva vs State of Maharashtra (Theory: Five methods, one chosen, no negligence)

 

Case 8

·         Case Title: Om Prakash Ahuja versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. (SC)

·         Civil Appeal Nos. 2769-2770 Of 2023

·         Decided on 4^th July 2023

Issues:

·         Is the concealment of a fact considered a material issue when a claim is filed for a treatment unrelated to the concealed ailment?

·         Is the denial of renewal justified when the insurance company acknowledges that the concealment of a disease was deemed non-material and unrelated to the ailment leading to death?

Facts:

The complainant raised concerns about Reliance General Insurance Ltd. not reimbursing the expenses incurred for his wife's ovarian cancer treatment. The Consumer Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, and the State Commission in Haryana upheld the District Commission's order, dismissing the appeal made by the Insurance Company.

 

National Commission

In Revision Petition No. 1417/2014, the National Commission upheld the State Commission's directions regarding reimbursing the expenses for the treatment of the complainant's deceased wife. However, the directive for the renewal of the health insurance policy was overturned.

 

Supreme Court:

·         Insurance cannot take other plea once admitted no concealment of facts.

·         Once there is a valid insurance policy in favour of a person, the claim for reimbursement of the expenses incurred must be paid.

·         If the insurance company has acknowledged that the concealment of a disease during the policy purchase was not material, particularly as it was unrelated to the ailment leading to death, it is not permissible for the company to subsequently deny additional claims or refuse to renew the insurance policy on the same basis.

 

Case 9

·         Case title: Cloudtail India Private Limited. vs Central Consumer Protection Authority

·         CCPA Appeal No. 4 of 2022 (Against the Order dated 04/11/2022 in Complaint No. J-25/72/2021 of the CCPA DELHI)

This marks the inaugural order of its kind by the CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority) following the enforcement of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. The order has been contested before the apex consumer commission, challenging the jurisdiction of the CCPA. Given that the CCPA is a newly established entity under the Act of 2019, this order carries substantial significance.

Issue -Mandatory BIS Mark

Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016, issued notification dated 21.01.2020, making it mandatory for domestic pressure cooker to bear Standard Mark under a licence from Bureau of Indian Standards.

Facts

·         Cloudtail India Private Limited was doing e-commerce through Amazon website and listed ‘Amazon Basics Stainless Steel Outer Lid Pressure Cooker, 4 Litre’ on above website and sold 1033 pressure cookers in India after 01.02.2021. These pressure cookers were manufactured by “Zhejiang Supor Company Limited, Damaiyu Economic Investment Zone, Yuhuan, Taizhou, and Zhjiang, China” and bears “European Commission Standard” mark as established in the European Union and were imported into India, prior to issue of the Order.

·         Central Consumer Protection Authority under the power Section 18 of the Act, issued notice dated 29.11.2021 to the company to show cause as it were selling pressure cooker in violation of the Order, which was liable to be held as defective, violative of consumer right and amounts to unfair trade practice, within the meaning of the Act.

·         Not satisfied with the reply, CCPA directed Cloudtail India Private Limited to recall 1033 pressure cookers, sold by the company in the country, refunding its price to the consumers, within 45 days and imposed a penalty of Rs.100000/-, for selling the pressure cooker, in violation of Quality Control Order, 2020.

·         The National Commission dismissed the appeal submitted by Cloudtail India, thereby affirming the order by the CCPA that indicated a violation of BIS Rules.

 

Case 10

·         Case Title: M/S. Rajasthan Art Emporium versus Kuwait Airways & Anr (NC)

·         Civil Appeal No. 9194 of 2012&Civil Appeal No. 9106 Of 2012

·         Decided on 9^th November 2023, New Delhi (NC)

Issue: Theory of Vicarious Liability of Principal for the act of agent

In the usual course, individuals are not typically held accountable for the actions of others. However, the theory of Vicarious Liability allows for the imposition of liability on an individual for the actions of someone else, based on their relationship with the wrongdoer. An example of this is the case where Kuwait Airways was found responsible for a delay in the delivery of goods. The airline, acting through its agent, had promised that the goods would be delivered within a week but, in reality, they were delivered after one and a half months.

Facts

·         The fax message sent by agent through whom the consignment was booked to be shipped by the Airways goes to show that the goods shall be delivered at Chicago Memphis on 29.07.1996, 31.07.1996 and 31.07.1996.

·         The airline never asserted that the agent was not authorized or lacked the authority to provide the delivery schedule for the consignment. Consequently, the airline is vicariously liable for the actions of its agent.

 

Law

Liability of the Principal for the act of his Agent: When a principal authorizes his agent to perform any act, he becomes liable for the act of such agent, provided the agent has conducted it in the course of perfor

Previous

Next