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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more