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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more