CONSUMER PROTECTION

ACT 1986

NAME: PUJA PANKAJ RATHOD

PRN: 19040621047
BATCH: 2019-22
 WHO IS A CONSUMER & WHAT IS CONSUMERISM?

• A consumer is defined as any individual who

purchases products or services for his/her
personal use and not for manufacturing or
resale.
• A consumer is one who is the decision maker
whether or not to buy an item at the store, or
someone who is influenced by advertisement
and marketing.
• The term consumerism had been first used in
the year 1915 and is referred to as the
advocacy of the rights and interests of
consumers; defined in Oxford English
Dictionary.
• However, in 1960 an article refers to
consumerism as an emphasis on or
preoccupation with the acquisition of
consumer goods’.
 WHAT IS THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT ?
• Consumer Protection is a concept that was first introduced
by John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the
United States on 15th March 1962. He spoke about this
concept in a special speech to the Congress.
• His speech stressed protecting the consumer’s interest.
Kennedy also spoke about the four basic rights of the
consumer, namely: Right to Safety, Right to be Informed,
Right to be Heard and Right to Choose.
• The Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 was passed by both
the Houses of Parliament and it received the assent of the
President on 24th December, 1986. It came on the
Statutes Book as THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
• The Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 seeks to provide for
better protection of the interests of consumers and for the
purpose, to make provision for the establishment of
Consumer councils and other authorities for the
settlement of consumer disputes and for matter connected
therewith.
 COMPLAINTS
• The goods, bought by him, or agreed to be bought by him, suffer one or
more defects.
• The services hired or availed of, agreed to be hired or availed of by him,
suffer from deficiency in any respect.
• A trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint, a price in
excess of the price fixed by, or under any law for the time being in force or
displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods, with a view
to obtaining any relief provided by or under this act.
• Goods which will be hazardous to life and safety when used, are being
offered for sale to the public in contravention of the provisions of any law for
the time being in force requiring traders to display information in regard to
the contents, manner and effect of use of such goods.
• Services which hazardous or likely to be hazardous to life and safety of the
public when used; are being offered by the service provider, which such
person could have known with due diligence to be injurious to life and safety:
CASE STUDIES
 SPRING MEADOWS HOSPITAL & ANR VS. HARJOL
AHLUWALIA

• This appeal was filed in the Supreme Court by a hospital defending the
negligence of its nurses and a doctor which resulted in a minor being in a
permanent vegetative state subsequent to a brain haemorrhage.
• The issues revolved around whether the parents of the child, not being the
patient themselves, can ask for compensation for mental agony caused to
them.
• The court held that the definition of services in the CPA is wide enough to
include both the parents who pay for the services and the child who is the
beneficiary of the services.
• The National Commission was found correct in its approach as it granted
compensation to the child for the cost of equipment's and recurring
expenses that he would have to bear owing to his vegetative state,
whereas the compensation provided to the parents was for the agony
caused and the lifetime care that the parents would have to provide.
 S ASHIKANT KRISHNAII DOLE VS. SHITSHAN PRAS ARAK MANDALI

• Failure to provide basic safeguards in the swimming pool amounted to deficiency in service.
The National commission held that failure to amount basic safeguards in the swimming pool
amounts to deficiency in service.
• A school owned a swimming pool and offered swimming facilities to the public on payment of
a fee. The school conducted winter and summer training camps to train boys in swimming
and for this purpose engaged a trainer/coach.
• The complainants had enrolled their only son for learning swimming under the guidance of
the coach. It was alleged that due to the negligence of the coach, the boy drowned and died.
• The school denied any responsibility on its part. The coach claimed that he had considerable
experience in coaching young boys is swimming. When the deceased was found to have
been drowned, the coach immediately took him out of the water and removed the water
from his stomach and gave him artificial respiration and thereafter took him to a doctor.
• The doctor advised that the boy be taken to the nearest hospital where the boy died. The
State Commission held the school and the coach deficient in rendering service to the
deceased. On appeal, the order was upheld by the National Commission.
 POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS.

• In this case, the respondent, a homoeopathic doctor, prescribed allopathic

medicines for the treatment of a patient who did not respond to the medicine and
subsequently died.
• The Supreme Court held that the right to practice the allopathic system of
medicine was restricted by the Central and State Acts which prohibit such practice
unless the person possesses requisite qualification and is registered according to
the Acts.
• Based on the fact that the respondent was qualified and registered to practice
Homeopathy only, he was found to be in violation of the statutory duty not to
practice Allopathy given under the section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act,
1956.
• Respondent’s act was held to be actionable negligence and he was ordered to pay
a compensation of three lakhs.
 INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION VS. V.P. SHANTHA
AND OTHERS

• In deciding this case of deficiency of medical service, the court held

that the services rendered by a medical professional fall within the
ambit of ‘services’ under the section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
• It rejected the contention that a medical practitioner, being a
professional and falling under the scope of Indian Medical Council
Act, stands excluded from the CPA.
• Moreover, it held that provision of a token fee (for the hospital
administrative purposes) would not include an otherwise free service
within the ambit of the definition of services.
• Also, the cost of the services paid by the employer or the insurance
company would be deemed similar to paying for the service by the
consumer itself.
 SEHGAL SCHOOL OF COMPETITION VS. DALBIR
SINGH

• To seek admission in a medical coaching centre, the petitioner, in this case,

was made to deposit a lump sum fee for two years within the first six months.
• When the petitioner left the course midway on account of deficiency in the
services, the coaching centre refused to refund the remaining amount.
• The State Tribunal, following the view of the apex court and the National
Commission, held that no educational institution shall collect lump sum fee for
the duration of the entire course and if one does, such extra fee should be
returned in case the student drops out due to deficiency.
• It noted that any clause in a contract contrary to this is invalid due to lack of
equal bargaining power and contravention of the principles of natural justice.
• The court was also of the opinion that additional compensation should be
granted for the mental agony caused due to approaching the legal forum.
• However, since such was not asked in the petition, it could not be granted.
 V.N. SHRIKHANDE VS. ANITA SENA FERNANDES

• The petitioner alleged negligence by a medical practitioner, claiming that he left a mass
of gauge in her abdomen during a procedure to remove stones from the gallbladder.
• However, the petition was raised nine years after the procedure when the petitioner
underwent a second operation, in another hospital, to remove the mass.
• The Supreme Court recognized that in cases of medical negligence no straightforward
formulae is present to determine when the cause of action has accrued. The court,
following ‘Discovery Rule’ evolved by the courts in the United States, stated that in the
case where the effect of the negligence is obvious, the cause of action is deemed to have
arisen at the time of negligence.
• However, in case the effect of negligence is dormant, the cause of action arises when the
patient figures out about the negligence with reasonable diligence. The court noted that
the petitioner had been experiencing pain and discomfort since the time of the operation
for which she continued to take painkillers for nine years without consulting the doctor.
• In the light of this and the fact that she herself was an experienced nurse who can
reasonably be expected to possess more knowledge than a layman, the court set aside
the Commission’s order and dismissed the complaint.
 SAPIENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND TRUST VS. HDFC & ORS.

• In a complaint against HDFC for debiting money without the

permission of the holder, the National Commission noted that
payment was done in compliances with the order of a statutory
authority and only after giving the complainant due notice of the
same.
• The Commission stated that there is a need to guard against the
possibility of frivolous complaints from being filed due to the
absence of any court fees.
• For this reason, holding that the complaint lacked seriousness and
was filed without sufficient grounds, the Commission imposed a fine
of twenty-five thousand on the complainant under section 26 of the
Act.
 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. D.C. SHARMA

• In the case of an accidental double allotment of a plot by the Delhi

Development Authority, the State Commission refused to accept the
defence that the plot had not been provided to the complainant only
for his failure to pay the cost.
• It was found from the records that the plot had been allocated to
another person.
• It, therefore, ordered the Delhi Development Authority to either
provide another plot of the same description to the appellant under
the same conditions or pay the escalated price of the plot.
• The National Commission dismissed the revision petition for lack of
infirmity in the State Commission’s judgment and ordered the
payment of five lakhs for indulging in unfair trade practices and
unduly harassing the respondent for more than eighteen years.