Skip to main content

Woman asked to pay for filing meritless complaint

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed a woman to pay a total of Rs 40,000 to seven doctors and an ayurvedic clinic for pursuing a meritless case for 10 last years against them.
In a recent order, the NCDRC directed the woman to pay Rs 5,000 to each of the parties, and said, "During the last 10 years, the petitioner has taken the respondents to different consumer fora by filing one petition or the other, just to cause harassment to them."

The complainant, Raika Bandukwalla, had filed the complaint along with her now deceased aunt Mohsena.

According to the complaint, Mohsena was suffering from breathlessness, leg pain and skin discolouration. In 2002, influenced by the advertisements of Coimbatore-based Ayurvedic Trust and Research Centre, Mohsena got admitted for a 35-day treatment at their Calicut centre. Her niece reportedly paid Rs 1.26 lakh for the treatment.

Bandukwalla alleged that following the treatment, Mohsena's condition deteriorated. Further treatment and recommendations by doctors in Delhi and Mumbai also failed. It is alleged that Mohsena was cheated by the clinic by making a false representation. The two women filed a complaint in the forum in Delhi first and then, for want of jurisdiction, another complaint in Mumbai.

Both the forums dismissed the complaints in 2007 and 2010 respectively. Mohsena died on November 25, 2008. Bandukwalla filed an appeal in the state commission, which was also dismissed in June 2010. She then filed a revision petition in the National Commission.

The Commission, after hearing both the sides, rejected the petition and passed the order. UNI

Article referred: http://www.indlaw.com/search/news/default.aspx?F2E84C8C-A75A-4F5A-85A5-71A3E8F92D00

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more