GLS University

Faculty of Law

3 Years LL.B. (Hons) - Programme

Batch: 2023-26

Academic Year: 2023-24

: Course Title:
Law of Torts including MV Accident
And Consumer Protection Laws

Course Code: 212101106

: Submitted to:
Prof. Darshan Pandya

: Submitted by :

HARSHIL MITESH PATEL

Roll no. 83
Semester-I
Division-B
 CASE REVIEW

CASE - 1

Apple-I Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs. Axis Bank Ltd.

CASE COMPILATION

1 Name of the Case 1. Apple-i entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

2. Jaspalsinh Ranjitsinh Vala

VERSUS

Axis Bank Limited

2 Case citation ---

3 Date of the Judgement 27/04/2022

4 Court State Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad

5 Facts of the case Case for recovery of Rs.71,50,000/- for the

negligence, carelessness and mistake of opponent
bank resulted into deficiency in service

6 Case number Consumer Complaint No. 197/2014

7 Case Type Consumer Complaint

8 Bench Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President

Mr. I.D. Patel, Judicial Member
Ms. A.C.Raval, Member

9 Provisions involved Section - 17 (A) (i)

10. Statues involved The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

FACTS IN BRIEF

1. The complaint was filed under section u/s. 17 (A) (i) of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 against the opponent Axis Bank Ltd. seeking relief of the compensation of
Rs.71,50,000/- for the negligence carelessness and mistake of opponent bank which
resulted into deficiency in service.
2. The compliant no. 1 is a private limited company registered under The Companies
Act, 1956 and complainant no. 2 is Director of the said company. The
complainants (for short, hereinafter referred to as the complainant') opened an
account with opponent Bank. It was instructed to that out of three Directors of the
company, any two Directors would be authorised signatories and signing authority
for and on behalf of the company with the opponent bank. Necessary instructions
were given to the opponent bank by the complainant company on15.12.2011.

3. Despite clear mandate given by the complainant with respect to operation of the
bank account etc. the bank did not take effective steps and it was done only on
12.07.2012 and in the meantime, the bank allowed various withdrawals including
self withdrawals by cheques or cheques written in favour of third party by one of
the Directors viz. Shaktisinh Vaghela alone and total amount of Rs. 36 Lakhs had
been withdrawn from the account of the complainant during the period 15.12.2011
and 12.07.2012. Criminal complainant was also lodged with Vastrapur Police
Station in this regard and alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opponent
bank, the complainant filed complaint before the Commission claiming the
compensation of Rs. 71,50,000/- from the opposite bank on various heads.

ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION

According to the facts presented above the following issues can be raised under the case –
1. Whether the complainant successfully proved bank negligence or deficiency in
service as alleged in the complaint and as such the complainant is entitled the
amount claimed in para 9 of the complaint or not ?

2. Whether compliant filed by the complainant is not within the period of

limitation and apparently the compliant is time barred and deserves to be
dismissed ?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
FROM THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT –
1. The opponent bank was informed to make necessary change in the bank account about
operating system on 15.12.2011.However the bank has effected the said change in
account operating mode of operation only on 12.7.2012.
2. It came to the knowledge of the complainant no. 2 when the complainant lodged the
FIR on 13.10.2012 and charge-sheet was filed on 29.7.2013 and from the documents
submitted by the bank it has gathered about the deficiency in service provided by the
bank. Hence this cause of action which is otherwise continue one and accordingly the
present complaint was filed on 15.7.2014 is well within the period of limitation.
3. So far as the ratio as laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited by the bank is
concerned the same is not applicable absolutely and it is against the opponent as much
as the complaint is well within the period of limitation and it is not barred by the time.
4. Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the delay can be condoned irrespective
of whether there is an formal application, if sufficient material on record disclosing
sufficient cause of delay.
5. Though the bank had received the mandate regarding change of mode of operation in
the bank account of the company the bank had failed to change the same in the system
and that amount to be carelessness, negligence and deficiency in the service on the part
of the bank and on account of such negligence and carelessness bank had allowed to
illegally withdrawn amount of Rs. 36,00,000/- .

FROM THE SIDE OF THE OPPONENTS –

1. On perusal of the bank transaction statement for the period of 1.9.2011 to 16.2.2012
produced by the complainant along with the complaint the last transaction to be placed
on 16.2.2012. So on 16.2.2012 it was within the knowledge of the complainant that
there was illegal withdrawn amount from the complainant bank account by Shaktisinh
Vaghela.

2. Actual cause of action for filing compliant commence after 16.2.2012 and therefore,
considering the same date as cause of action the complainant has to filed the complaint
within the period of 2 years which comes to an end on 16.2.2014 but the present
complaint is filed by the complainant on 15.7.2014. So the present complaint filed by
the complainant is time barred.

3. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court when no separate application for
condonation of delay is filed by the complainant nor complainant has shown sufficient
cause of delay then complaint is not maintainable. Hence he has submitted that in
this case the complainant has filed the complaint after period of limitation prescribed
in the act.
4. The statement of the bank employees recorded by the police during the course of
investigation has no evidently value and on the basis of their statement it cannot be
believed that there was a carelessness, negligence or deficiency in service on the part
of the Axis Bank for not making change of mode of operation in the system of bank as
per the mandate of the bank.

5. The complainant has miserably failed to prove by leading independent evidence that
bank had received the mandate regarding the change of mode of operation in the
account as per the say of the complainant and bank has failed to do so. So the
complainant has miserably failed to prove that there was any carelessness, negligence
and deficiency in service on the part of the opponent bank.

JUDGEMENT
The aspect of limitation is required to be decided on the basis of relevant provision of
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as also on the basis of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex
Court and Hon'ble National Commission as also on the basis of the available material on
record and as per the view of this Commission actual cause of action for filing the present
complaint against the opponent bank commenced as on 16.2.2012 i.e. last date of
transaction of the bank account statement and complainant has to file the compliant within
the period of two years from the 16.2.2012 but the complaint is filed as on 15.7.2014 that
is after the period of two years limitation prescribed under section 24 (A) of The
Consumer Protection Act 1986 and apparently the compliant is time barred and deserves
to be dismissed. The complainant successfully proved that there was carelessness,
negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opponent for not making change of
mode of operation in the complainant's account in the bank system which resulted in
financial loss but the complaint filed by the complainant company was beyond the
limitation period prescribed in the Act and accordingly the complaint was dismissed.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
As per my opinion, the judgement given by the court was very practical and rational.
The complainant proved that there was carelessness, negligence and deficiency in service
on the part of opponent for not making change of mode of operation in the complainant's
account in the bank system which resulted in financial loss but the complainant has legal
right or remedy to recover the said amount from their outgoing director and not from the
opponent bank and as such the said outgoing director was a necessary party in this
complaint for recovery of the said amount but the complainant had not joined him as party
in this case and therefore also the complainant company was not entitled to claim
Rs. 71,50,000/- as claimed. The complainant company had proved deficiency of service
on the part of bank but the complaint filed by the complainant company was beyond the
limitation period prescribed in the Act and accordingly the complaint filed by the
complainant was liable to be dismissed.

REFERENCE
Indian Kanoon
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29528258/
 CASE REVIEW

CASE - 2

Miss. Sunanda G. Barve vs. Dr. Jayant S. Barve

CASE COMPILATION

1 Name of the Case Miss Sunanda Gangadhar Barve

VERSUS

1. Dr.Jayant S. Barve
2. M/s. Jewel Nursing Home & Polyclinic,

2 Case citation ---

3 Date of the Judgement 21/12/2018

4 Court State Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, Maharshtra State, Mumbai

5 Facts of the case Case for compensation of Rs.8,80,000/- for the

medical negligence

6 Case number Consumer Complaint No. 00/201

7 Case Type Consumer Complaint

8 Bench Hon'ble Mr. P. B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member

Dr. S.K. Kakade, Member

9. Statues involved The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

FACTS IN BRIEF

1. On April 10, 1998, at 7.30 p.m., the complainant Ms. Sunanda and her two sisters
Bhagyashree and Leela brought their deceased father Shri. Gangadhar Barve, 73,
to the opposite party No. 1 (OP No.1) at his hospital, Jewel Nursing Home and
Polyclinic of Vile Parle (OP No. 2), West Mumbai, with complaints of constipation
and improper diet.

2. The hospital staff took her father to the ward as they waited in the OPD line, and
OP No. 1 visited the patient. He gave the orders to both send investigators and to
 admit the patient. After the admissions process was complete, the patient's
treatment began; intravenous fluids were administered and an enema was given for
constipation. The very next day, on April 11, 1998, OP No. 1 recommended a CT
scan of the patient's brain, and the patient was taken to PH Medical Centre for the
scan.

3. There was considerable hydrocephalus, according to the CT scan. Based on the

investigational reports, OP No. 1 recommended a therapeutic lumbar puncture and
extracted 20 ml of CSF (Cerebrospinal Fluid) on April 15, 1998. The patient's
condition further deteriorated. For the patient, a Foley's catheterization was
performed, and physiotherapy was also started.

4. Complainants made the decision to transport the patient to the tertiary care Jaslok
hospital as his health continued to worsen. On April 19, 1998, the deceased patient
was transferred to Jaslok Hospital and placed in the ICCU under the care of Dr.
Jayant Barve, OP 1. As the patient had kidney failure, haemodialysis was
performed at the Jaslok hospital. The complainant's condition continued to decline
while receiving treatment in the ICU at the Jaslok hospital, and he passed away on
April 30, 1998.

5. Thus, this is an alleged case of medical negligence filed by the complainant against
Dr.Jayant Barve and his hospital Jewel Nursing Home claiming a compensation of
up to Rs. 8, 80, 000/- under various headings.

ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION

According to the facts presented above the following issues can be raised under the case –
1. Whether the opposite parties can be held liable for medical negligence and
deficiency in service in the treatment given to Shri. Gangadhar Barve?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation asked? if yes, then
whether full compensation is to be granted or part?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
FROM THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT –
1. The complainant argued that based on a CT scan obtained on April 11th, 1998,
which revealed hydrocephalus, the opposing party no. 1 performed a lumbar
 puncture without getting consent to retrieve a little amount of CSF (cerebrospinal
fluid). The complaint claimed that the lumbar puncture carried out by No. 1 at
Hospital No. 2 of the opposing party caused her father's health to continue to
deteriorate.

2. The complainant claimed that no junior doctor was dispatched to accompany the
patient in the ambulance to provide care during transport while they were having a
CT scan of the brain performed in Santa Cruz.

3. An unqualified general nurse performed her father's urethral catheterization rather

than a qualified doctor.

4. She further claimed that the constipation enema wasn't administered by a trained
nurse nor in front of a doctor.

5. Her father had physiotherapy on April 18th, 1998, despite his elderly age and poor
physical health. The patient consequently felt tired. The patient's overall condition
deteriorated as a result of this.

6. The plaintiff further asserted that opposite party no. 1 lacked the necessary
expertise to perform a lumbar puncture.

7. The patient at Jaslok Hospital additionally suffered extra injury as a result of the
opposite party's No. 1's failure to issue prompt orders for completing
haemodialysis, and as a result, the patient passed away due to negligence.

FROM THE SIDE OF THE OPPONENTS –

1. Learned advocate for the opposing parties claimed that when the patient was taken
for a CT scan at the P.H. Medical Centre at around 2:30 p.m., he was brought in an
ambulance with a capable doctor and nurse in addition to the patient's family.

2. Dr. Harshad Parekh, an experienced neurosurgeon, was consulted after opposite

party no. 1 spoke with the patient's family and informed them of the situation. Dr.
Parekh responded right away and, after thoroughly examining the patient,
concluded that the patient "needs drainage L.P. (Lumbar Puncture), and if with that
he improved, then the surgery of V.P. (Ventriculo Peritoneal) shunt was to be
considered After debating the advantages and disadvantages of the next course of
management, the patient's family approved the lumbar puncture.
3. In this case , a skilled nurse who is registered with the Nursing Council
catheterized the patient while taking all necessary aseptic measures. According to
the certified nurse Mrs. Alka Narvekar, the enema is a process that is carried out by
certified nurses, thus she gave the patient an enema.

4. Dr. Atul Londhe, a licenced physiotherapist, provided bedside exercises and gate
training. Since the patient in this case was a 73-year-old man with many issues,
only bedside physiotherapy was provided.

5. The treating physicians opposing party no. 1 and other top specialists like Dr.
Parekh periodically updated the family on the patient's status and the course of
therapy.

6. The neurosurgeon explained to the complainant why the patient needed a V.P.
shunt operation, but the complainant refused. The claimant was also told that the
V.P. shunt was a remedial rather than a curative procedure. Despite being told why
a V.P. shunt was necessary, the plaintiff declined to have surgery.

JUDGEMENT
According to the court's observations, the complaint complained about the hospital's and
opposite party number 1's subpar service. It appears that the complaint is founded on the
complainant's vims because the complainant has not submitted any professional proof or
opinion demonstrating the medical malpractice or defect in service. Thus, this is a baseless
complaint that was filed years ago to harass the doctor, who has treated these patients
according to regular procedures. The complainant's claim of medical negligence has not
been proven. Being a frivolous complaint, the complainant is obligated to pay the
opposing parties Rs. 10,000 within one month of the date of this decision, failing which,
interest at 12% until realisation, will apply. The complaint is dismissed with costs of
Rs.25,000/- that the complainant must pay to the opposing parties.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
As per my opinion, the judgement given by the court was very practical and rational.
The reason behind this is that the court doesn’t work on emotions but on proof. Merely
accusing someone of a wrong without a single proof to prove it is just wasting the precious
time of court. Something similar is what happened in the above case mentioned. The
complainant lost her father that but this doesn’t mean that she can just get up one morning
and file a baseless case on a doctor who performed his duties and tried to save her father.
In fact, it was suggested to the complainant to go for a V.P. shunt operation, however she
refused to do so. The complainant did not submit any expert report which can say that the
procedure followed by the opposite party was wrong or the opposite party conducted a
deficiency in performing his duty.
The court in the above case penalized the complainant to file a frivolous case against the
opponent which I feel is a very correct step taken by the court. Firstly, filing of a frivolous
complaint by someone not only wastes the court’s time but it also takes away the time of a
genuine complain which actually requires the court to grant justice. Secondly, there has
been observed an increase in the cases of medical negligence in court and this is not a
good sign. Consider an example wherein a patient needs an immediate medical treatment
and the chances of survival of the patient are very low then the doctor, in the fear of a
criminal prosecution, will not even try to save the patient. This results in a disservice by
the medical practitioners to the society. It is very truly said that “A surgeon with shaky
hands under fear of legal action cannot perform a successful operation and a quivering
physician cannot administer the end-dose of medicine to his patient.” Thus, A surgeon
cannot perform properly if the hands are shaking from the dangling threat of being
arrested if something goes wrong, regardless of whether it was his fault or not neither can
a doctor successfully provide the life-saving dose of medication or use his life-saving
knife to execute an important surgery.
Summarizing all the information stated, I would like to say that though this was a
frivolous complaint, there are several genuine medical negligence cases which needs our
attention like the V. Krishan Rao v Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital 2010. Also, recently a
four-month-old baby died at the hospital in Delhi after the doctor gave a painkiller to
provide relief in the stitches in the upper lip. Thus, the doctors need to be careful while
treating a patient as they are considered living gods and they need to meet this title. Also,
people should not flow in emotions and file false cases against the doctors as this wastes
the court’s time and even threatens the doctors to perform their duty.

REFERENCE
Indian Kanoon
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55579665/
 CASE REVIEW

CASE - 3

MR. S. VIJAYA RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS V/S. BANK OF BARODA

CASE COMPILATION

1 Name of the Case 1. MR. S. VIJAYA RAGHAVAN

2. MISS SARASWATHY (DECEASED),

VERSUS

Bank Of Baroda

2 Case citation ---

3 Date of the Judgement 05/07/2022

4 Court State Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, Delhi

5 Facts of the case Case for recvovery of Rs.22,46,500/- for the alleged
deficiency in service

6 Case number C. C. No. 230/2010

7 Case Type Consumer Case

8 Bench Hon’ble Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal

(President)
Hon’ble Sh. Rajan Sharma,
Member (Judicial)
9. Statues involved The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

FACTS IN BRIEF

1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainants before this commission
alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party and has prayed the
following reliefs:
 a) To pay Rs. 8,46,500 with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from
04.08.2006 till the date of payment.

b) To pay Rs. 7,00,000 for deficiency of service of the opposite party in

allowing unauthorized withdrawals;

c) To pay Rs. 5,00,000 towards mental agony and pain caused by such
deficiency of service;

d) To pay Rs. 2,00,000 towards legal expenses and cost of litigation.

e) Any other relief which this Hon'ble commission may deem fit in the interest
of justice.

2. The Complainants were residing in Delhi and holding a joint account bearing no.
00960100005864 with the Opposite party from several years. In April 2006, the
Complainants shifted their house from Delhi to Mysore. After shifting their house,
Complainants found that their pass book and cheque book were misplaced during
the shifting process. The Complainants while checking their account statement
found that some unauthorized withdrawal has been done from their account
amounting to Rs. 8,45,500.00. The Complainants vide letter dated 16.11.2006 and
26.11.2006, informed the Opposite party about the unauthorized withdrawals and
requested the Opposite party to take proper action and credit the whole amount that
was wrongly deducted from their accounts through these transactions. The
Opposite party vide the letter dated 14.12.2006 and 19.02.2007 assured the
Complainants by stating that investigation in the present matter is going on and
they will apprise the Complainants as soon as they got some information from the
concerned banks/ departments. Thereafter, the Opposite party vide the letter dated
27.01.2010 sought certain details from the Complainants which were duly
provided by the Complainants vide the letter dated 24.02.2010

3. The Complainants tried numerous times to communicate with the Opposite party.
However, the Opposite party didn’t pay any heeds to the requests of the
Complainants. Thus, left with no other option, alleging deficiency of service on the
part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant approached this commission.
4. The Opposite Party contested the present case and raised preliminary objections as
to the maintainability of the complaint case. The Opposite Party submitted that the
allegation of fraud and forgery made by the Complainants cannot be tried by the
Consumer Forums. The Opposite Party further submitted that the Complainants
have no cause of action to file the present complaint. The opposite party also
submitted that the present complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation.
Pressing the aforesaid objections, the Opposite Party prayed that the present
complaint should be dismissed

5. The Complainants filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the
Opposite Party and both the parties filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in
order to prove their averments on record

ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION

According to the facts presented above the following issues can be raised under the case –
1. Whether the Consumer Commission is empowered to adjudicate the allegations of
fraud?

LAW POINTS INVOLVED / RAISED

 Hon’ble NCDRC held in Revision petition no. 1268/2011 titled as “Nirmal Kumar
Pandey and Ors. Vs. Kollati Construction Ltd. And Ors.” decided on 19.08.2015 as
follows -
“As per above averments made by the petitioners in their complaint, it is
manifestly clear, that by no stretch of imagination present dispute can be said
to be a "Consumer Dispute". Admittedly, petitioners have made allegations of
fraud, criminal conspiracy and creation of fake settlement deed etc. So, to
decide all these alleged criminal acts, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction
to deal with such matters. Therefore, both fora below, rightly refused to
entertain the complaint of the petitioners”

 Hon’ble NCDRC held in C. C. no. 269/2017 titled as “Capital Charitable and

Education Society Vs. Axis Bank Limited” decided on 09.12.2019 as follows -
 “20. This Commission has taken a consistent view that the cases related to
fraud and/or forgery cannot be decided by the consumer forum as the
proceedings in consumer forum are summary in nature. This Commission has
held in the following case that the matter relating to fraud and forgery cannot
be decided under the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

JUDGEMENT
On perusal of above settled law, it was clear that the allegations of fraud cannot be decided
by the Consumer Foras. It is alleged by the Complainants that their joint bank account has
been fraudulently debited by the bank from the cheques which were not issued by them.
Relying on the above settled law, it was hold that the commission does not have the
jurisdiction to deal with the allegations of fraud as alleged in the present case and
therefore, the present complaint filed by the Complainants was accordingly dismissed.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
As per my opinion, the judgement given by the court was very practical and rational in
following the binding ratio laid down by Hon’ble NCDRC and dismissing the matter on
the count that it had no jurisdiction to decide the matter relating to fraud.

REFERENCE
COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 230/2010 DELHI SCDRF