Consumer Protection Act

Consumer Protection Act
An Act to provide for protection of the interests of consumers and for the
said purpose, to establish authorities for timely and effective
administration and
settlement of consumers' disputes and for matters connected connected
therewith.” (According to Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
“An Act to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and
for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer
councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers' disputes
and for matters connected therewith.”(According to Consumer Protection
Act, 1986).
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeks to promote and protect the
interest of consumers against deficiencies and defects in goods or
services. It also seeks to secure the rights of a consumer against unfair
or restrictive trade practices. This act was passed in Lok Sabha on 9th
December,1986 and Rajya Sabha on 10th December, 1986 and
assented by the President of India on 24th December, 1986 and was
published in the Gazette of India on 26th December, 1986.
Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences v Prasanth S. Dhananka &

Ors
Factual Background of the case
This consumer case arises out of a complaint of medical negligence where a 20-
year-old engineering student was admitted to the Nizam Institute of Medical
Sciences (NIMS) after he complained of chest pain. Several tests and X rays were
done that revealed a tumor, however, it could not be ascertained whether the
tumor was malignant or not, therefore, the patient was advised to undergo
surgical removal of the same. After the surgery, the patient developed acute
paraplegia with a complete loss of control over the lower limbs and some other
related complications that led to urinary tract infections, bedsores, etc. The
family of the patient held NIMS vicariously liable and the State of Andhra
Pradesh statutorily liable (being a government hospital) for the negligence of the
doctors concerned. Allegations were primarily leveled against a doctor, Dr. P.V.
Satyanarayana for negligence before, during, and after the operation.
Arguments by the patient’s family
 The father of the patient, since he was an engineering student, had

pleaded with doctors to let him finish his education first before
undergoing the operation as there was no emergency or immediate
danger to life
 There were no pre-operative tests conducted
 Operating on the tumor that had neurological implications, there was no
neurosurgeon present
 Consent was taken only for the tumor excision, however, the doctors
removed not just the tumor but also surrounding ribs, tumor mass, and
destroyed blood vessels that led to the condition of paraplegia (paralysis).
Supreme Court verdict
Consent by the patient – The Court trashed the argument by the hospital that
since the patient was not conscious – implied consent to operate is assumed to
avoid a second additional operation.
Negligence by a medical professional – The Court looked at various cases of

medical negligence and held that as long as a doctor follows a practice
acceptable to the medical profession, he cannot be held liable for negligence
merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also
available. This also includes a scenario where just because a more skilled doctor
would not have chosen to follow a practice or procedure which the accused
followed. The conduct needs to be judged based on the day of the operation,
and not on trial. However, based on the evidence, in this case, gross negligence
is made out in part of the doctors.
Compensation – “Balance between multiple parties while awarding

compensation”
 While holding the doctors of NIMS liable, the court considers the following
– compensation for i) present burden of medical expenses, ii) prospective
burden of expenses, iii) loss of future earnings, iv) pain, suffering, loss of
amenities and enjoyment of life and shortening of life expectancy and v)
damages/compensation for father, mother, brother and maternal uncle of
the patient who will now be wheelchair-bound for the rest of his life.
 Under multiple heads cumulatively, the court awarded damages worth ₹ 1
crore. However, the court also rejected some amounts claimed by the
patient as unjust – such as ₹2 crores in a deposit form, to be withdrawn if
a future medical development allows his condition to improve.
 The Supreme Court mentions that the award of compensation is a balance
between many parties and interests, and sympathy for the patient must
not come in way of awarding a fair and adequate compensation.
Delhi Development Authority v D.C. Sharma
Factual Background of the case
In this case, DC Sharma (respondent), a government servant paid an initial

amount for allotment of a plot of ₹ 5 lacs in 1997, by the Delhi Development
Authority (hereinafter called DDA). He requested extra time for the instalment
payment as he wished to avail loan facility from his office. Meanwhile, it was
realised that the plot allotted to him through a draw of lots had already been
allotted to another person, two years before the draw of lots. Due to this
negligence of the DDA, the respondent approached the District forum, that
dismissed the case. Subsequently, the state Consumer forum was approached
that passed an order in favour of the respondent.
Order of the State Commission
The state commission in its order held the state responsible, for DDA is a
government entity. It directed DDA to allot an alternative plot of the same kind
or pay the escalated price of ₹30 lacs. The DDA relies on a frivolous argument
that the case is liable to be dismissed since the respondent did not pay the
instalment and therefore, his application stood rejected. Whereas, in reality, the
allotted plot number has already been assigned to someone back in 1995 and
the DDA took no steps to correct its own error in the allotment.
Order of the National Commission
Government departments such as DDA harassing genuine buyers in

technical pleas – The National Commission criticised the conduct of DDA by
stating that Governments and public authorities should not adopt the practice of
relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of
citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. It was well within the capacity
of the DDA to remedy this error and take corrective action. On the contrary, it
kept the condoning its own mistake by shifting the blame on the respondent.
Punitive damages for pursuing a frivolous case – While upholding the order
of the State Commission, The national commission imposed costs of ₹2 lacs as
well as punitive damages of ₹ 5 lac rupees on the DDA and asked them to
recover the amount from erring officials who pursued the case for eighteen
years. This long delay led to harassment of the respondent and filing of
meritless appeals in various courts. This has not just added to litigation costs but
also wasted time of several courts as well as the public ex-chequers money.

Consumer Protection Act

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer Protection Act

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer Protection Act

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer Protection Act

Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences v Prasanth S. Dhananka &

Factual Background of the case

 The father of the patient, since he was an engineering student, had

Supreme Court verdict

Negligence by a medical professional – The Court looked at various cases of

Compensation – “Balance between multiple parties while awarding

Delhi Development Authority v D.C. Sharma

Factual Background of the case

In this case, DC Sharma (respondent), a government servant paid an initial

Order of the State Commission

Government departments such as DDA harassing genuine buyers in

You might also like