Latest news with #DelhiStateConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission
Time of India
04-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Delhi consumer commission holds developer liable for delay in housing project completion
New Delhi: The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held DLF Gayatri Developers liable for the delay in completing a housing project and for holding onto the complainant's hard-earned money for a prolonged period. The bench, led by presiding member Bimla Kumari, ordered a refund of Rs 15 lakh along with costs for mental agony and litigation amounting to Rs 1.5 lakh. The bench observed that the company had no right to use or hold onto the complainant's money and that it was the developer's duty to arrange for labour for the project's development. The bench noted that the complainant paid approximately 75% of the amount within 11 months of booking until Sept 2013, and possession was only offered in 2019. The developer was held liable for the delay in completing the housing project. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi In Oct 2012, the complainant applied for the allotment of a residential plot in the housing project of a Delhi-based company, Garden City of DLF Gayatri Developers, situated in Andhra Pradesh. A sum of Rs 1.2 lakh was paid as a booking amount, and the developer assured that possession would be delivered within 24 months from the date of booking. By April 12, 2014, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs 14,66,304. However, upon personally visiting the project site, the complainant found no development work and pointed out some serious quality issues. In Dec 2017, he sent an email addressing the issues, but the developer failed to rectify them. The complainant alleged that other home buyers had already been granted compensation, but the developer denied the same to him. A legal notice was issued by the complainant, but the issue remained unresolved, leading him to file a complaint before the Delhi State Commission in Jan 2020, seeking appropriate compensation. The developer submitted that it could not be held liable as the delay occurred due to the Telangana movement in Andhra Pradesh and the time consumed in obtaining statutory approvals. The company also submitted that possession had already been offered to the complainant through a letter dated May 2, 2019. The firm argued that the complainant defaulted in making payments of instalments and refused to sign the allotment letter.
Time of India
21-06-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Delhi consumer panel upholds verdict indicting Dr Lal Pathlabs for wrong report
New Delhi: The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld a finding on Dr Lal Pathlabs being deficient in service and ordering it pay compensation to a patient over a wrong lab report . The state consumer commission's president Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and judicial member Pinki were hearing the lab's appeal against the August 2014 order of a district forum indicting the lab for a wrong test report and ordering Rs 3.5 lakh compensation. In its order on May 26, the commission said, "When a patient's urea levels are reported at more than ten times the normal range, triggering emergency hospitalisation and profound distress, the laboratory cannot retreat behind semantic arguments about its limited role in the diagnostic chain. Moreover, the appellant's (Lal Pathlabs) attempt to shift blame onto prescribing physicians or the Respondent's medical history holds no ground." It said if the tests carried out by a laboratory are defective and erroneous, the diagnosis by a doctor will be incorrect, resulting in improper treatment and the "medicines prescribed based on a wrong test report and diagnosis may lead to fatal results for the patient". "When multiple test reports from different laboratories show consistent results that differ significantly from one laboratory's findings, it creates a strong presumption of deficiency in service by the outlier laboratory," the commission added. Rejecting the lab's argument that the results were due to a particular drug consumed by the complainant, the commission said, "Even if it is assumed that the respondent (complainant) was taking Spirex tablets, we find it implausible that there could be such astronomical difference in patient's test reports pertaining to creatine and urea." It also rejected the lab's argument that the complainant did not agree to their request for re-collecting the sample, saying the report depicted the values of various important health indicators to be so high that any person having ordinary prudence would be perturbed by such results. "The respondent was under no obligation to get the tests redone. He got another test done from 3 labs, viz. Max Health Care, Dr Dangs Laboratory and Super Religare Laboratories Ltd, all of which depicted his parameters to be within the normal range," the commission said. The medical expenses incurred by the patient, in the panel's opinion, were directly attributable to the lab's erroneous report, which falsely indicated life-threatening conditions and necessitated emergency hospitalisation. The commission noted the discharge summary from Max Hospital "explicitly" linking the patient's admission there to the "erroneous outside lab report". "Being misdiagnosed with life-threatening conditions and undergoing unnecessary hospitalisation constitutes severe psychological trauma. The mental agony and physical suffering cannot be understated." The panel found the direction for compensation "just and reasonable". "We concur with the district commission's finding that the appellant failed to maintain the standard of reasonable care expected in pathological testing, thus amounting to a deficiency in service," it held.
Time of India
20-06-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Delhi consumer commission holds lab liable for faulty test report that led to hospitalisation
New Delhi: A faulty lab test report that triggers panic and emergency hospitalisation amounts to a deficiency in service, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DSCDRC) has said, asking a private pathology laboratory to compensate the affected customer. In a recent ruling, the state commission upheld the findings of a district consumer forum against Dr Lal Pathlabs and observed that its "grossly erroneous results constitute a failure to perform basic testing accurately, causing undue distress and unnecessary hospitalisation." Dismissing the appeal filed by the lab, the bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (president) and Pinki (member judicial) noted that if "the tests carried out by a laboratory are defective and erroneous, then the diagnosis by the doctor will not be correct, and the patient will not get the proper treatment. The medicines prescribed based on a wrong test report and diagnosis may lead to fatal results for the patient. When a patient's urea levels are reported at more than ten times the normal range, triggering emergency hospitalisation and profound distress, the laboratory cannot retreat behind semantic arguments about its limited role in the diagnostic chain." According to the complainant, on receiving the test report showing abnormally high creatinine levels at 8.39 mg/dl and urea at 189 mg/dl, while the reference range of creatinine is 0.6-1.3 mg/dl and urea at 6-21 mg/dl, the treating doctor directed immediate hospitalisation and further tests while preparing for a procedure. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 임플란트 29만원 이벤트 임플란트 더 알아보기 Undo However, further tests within 24-48 hours revealed normal readings. The same tests were conducted at two other private labs, which also showed the patient's parameters to be within the normal range. "It is to be noted that the medical expenses incurred by the respondent were directly attributable to the appellant's erroneous report, which falsely indicated life-threatening conditions and necessitated emergency hospitalisation ," the commission said. Rejecting the challenge to the award of Rs 3.5 lakh as compensation payable by the laboratory, the state commission pointed out that being "misdiagnosed with life-threatening conditions and undergoing unnecessary hospitalisation constitutes severe psychological trauma. The mental agony and physical suffering cannot be understated. Also, the prolonged litigation justifies litigation costs as a component of compensation. " Dr Lal Pathlabs said that there was no deficiency in service and that the tests were conducted under strict quality control protocols.
