Latest news with #StateConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission
New Indian Express
12-07-2025
- Health
- New Indian Express
Kerala girl loses eyesight, doctor, hospital asked to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has enhanced the compensation payout to a six-year-old girl who lost vision due to an ophthalmologist's misdiagnosis. The doctor misdiagnosed her eye ailment as squint whereas the actual cause was brain tumour. The first standard student who showed signs of squint on her left eye, was taken to the Kollam-based hospital on March 20, 2003. The ophthalmologist there, after conducting a fundoscopy and refraction test on the same day and on March 24, advised her to use a rubber cover over the right eye for at least four hours a day. She was asked to come for review after six months. During the review in September, the doctor informed the parents that her left eye's vision was lost. The parents then took her to the Aravind Eye Hospital, Tirunelveli, where a CT scan of the brain revealed an enlarged tumour in her brain. She was then referred to the Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST) where she underwent a left pterional craniotomy and tumour decompression. After the operation, the minor girl lost her right eye's vision as well.
New Indian Express
03-07-2025
- New Indian Express
Tricked into buying ‘18 litres/day' cow, Kerala man gets consumer panel relief
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Not every promise is genuine. Mathai learnt it the hard way. Three years after he was tricked into purchasing a cow that failed to give anywhere close to the '18 litres of milk per day' he was assured, the Kasaragod native got relief from the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC). As per Mathai, he purchased a pregnant cow from Ganesh Rao, also from Kasaragod, on April 9, 2022, for Rs 36,500. Rao promised Mathai the bovine would give 18 litres of milk per day. However, after delivery, the cow gave just 2 litres of milk and reacted violently whenever it was milked. It refused to feed the calf and would kick it away, Mathai said. Mathai took the matter up with Rao. However, the latter's wife approached the police accusing him of creating nuisance at their home. During mediation by the police, Rao claimed he would prove the cow delivered the promised milk if it is milked at his residence. On the police's directive, the cow and calf were taken to his residence. However, Rao refused to return the animals. Mathai then approached the District Legal Services Authority, but Rao remained ex-parte. He then moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. There, he got a rude shock. Rao claimed he never sold such a cow to him. Still, the commission favoured Mathai and directed Rao to refund him, and also pay him compensation and legal costs. Aggrieved, Rao filed an appeal with the SCDRC. The bench comprising SCDRC president Justice B Sudheendra Kumar, judicial member Ajith Kumar D and member K R Radhakrishnan heard the case.
New Indian Express
30-06-2025
- Health
- New Indian Express
‘Medisep beneficiaries can approach consumer forum'
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Beneficiaries of Medisep, the health insurance programme for Kerala government employees and pensioners, are free to approach the consumer disputes redressal commission, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has ruled. The commission rejected the argument by the Oriental Insurance Company, insurance provider of Medisep, that complaints against the scheme should be submitted to the Medisep Grievance Redressal mechanism before approaching the consumer commission. The case pertained to a petition filed by a 78-year-old retired headmaster before the Ernakulam district commission. He challenged the rejection of a claim for Rs 2.16 lakh which he spent on heart treatment. Oriental challenged the maintainability of the petition, citing that the beneficiary should have approached the grievance redressal cell first. The district commission rejected Oriental's argument, following which the company filed an appeal before the state commission. The SCDRC bench, comprising its president Justice B Sudheendra Kumar and judicial member Ajith Kumar D, considered the appeal. It observed that Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, provides that the provisions in the act are in 'addition to and not in derogation' of the provisions of any other law. Therefore, the commission has jurisdiction over complaints relating to Medisep claims, it said.
Time of India
29-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Builder ordered to refund 28.42L to flat buyer for delay in possession
Vadodara: A Vadodara-based real estate group has been directed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to refund Rs 28.42 lakh to Dr Nilam Desai and Dr Rasesh Desai for failing to deliver possession of a flat booked in their project. The complainants, represented by advocate Akhil Dave, stated that they booked a flat in the developer's Vadodara project in 2012, with possession promised by April 2016 under the terms of the agreement. They paid Rs 6 lakh via cheque and the remaining Rs 22.42 lakh through a private bank loan. According to the agreement, the disbursal of the loan amount was to be linked to the construction progress. However, after the first installment, the bank released the entire amount to the builder prematurely. Despite receiving the full amount, the company failed to deliver the flat by the stipulated date, prompting the Desais to file a complaint with the state consumer forum in April 2019, citing deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. They sought a refund with 12% interest. The commission noted that the builder group did not respond to the notices or contest the case. Based on the complainants' evidence, the forum ruled in their favour, ordering the builder to refund Rs 28.42 lakh along with 12% interest from the date of complaint filing. Additionally, the forum awarded the complainants Rs 50,000 in compensation for mental agony and inconvenience caused. "We have filed an execution application in the forum as the builder has yet to comply with the order," said Dave.
New Indian Express
23-06-2025
- Climate
- New Indian Express
Consumer panel rules rain damage covered under flood clause in insurance policy
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has ruled that damage due to heavy rain can be considered as a peril falling under the 'flood and inundation' clause in an insurance policy. An SCDRC bench comprising president Justice B Sudheendra Kumar, judicial member Ajith Kumar D and member K R Radhakrishnan made the ruling citing Supreme Court orders, while considering the appeal plea filed by a Palakkad native against the district commission's denial of compensation. The bench directed the firm, United India Insurance Co Ltd, to pay Rs 32,500 as losses and Rs 5,000 as costs. The complainant had availed a Standard Fire and Special Perils policy from the firm after paying a one-time premium of Rs 5,898.90. It covered the residential building, compound wall and well belonging to him. During the term of the policy, the compound wall collapsed in heavy rain. A surveyor assigned by the firm assessed the loss at Rs 32,500. However, the company rejected the claim saying rain or heavy rain was not a peril covered under the policy. It said coverage is for destruction or damage directly caused by storm, cyclone, typhoon, hurricane, tempest, tornado, flood or inundation excluding those from earthquake, volcanic eruption or other convulsions of nature. The district commission had upheld the company's argument.
