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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

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