Showing posts with label Consumer Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Consumer Law. Show all posts

07 September, 2008

Keep a tab on your bank account: CONSUMER RIGHTS

Pushpa Girimaji

The Tribune 7 September 2008 Spectrum

Banks are supposed to keep your money safe. But there are instances where banks fail in this duty. I am not talking of small banks or cooperative banks that go into liquidation, but of large, reliable, public sector banks that fail to prevent fraud, resulting in illegal withdrawal of money from the accounts of depositors.
Last October, for example, the police in Gurgaon had registered a case against the DLF branch of Indian Overseas Bank, following a complaint that Rs 20 lakh had been fraudulently withdrawn from the savings account of a woman customer. News reports quoting the police had said that one person had been arrested in connection with the case and investigations were on.
If one were to look at such complaints lodged with the police as well as consumer courts and the banking Ombudsmen, these cases usually fall into two categories: (a) those where money is withdrawn from the accounts of depositors by criminal elements in connivance with the employees of the bank; and (b) where the staff may not be involved at all but are careless or negligent enough to allow withdrawal of money from an account on the basis of a forged signature.
In both types of cases, the bank has to take responsibility for its action or inaction and make good the loss to the consumer. The apex court has said as much. In the case of N.Venkanna vs Andhra Bank, for example, it made it clear that banks had a duty to meticulously cross-check the signature on a cheque or a withdrawal slip. It also clarified that banks cannot escape liability by claiming that they did not have an ultraviolet ray lamp for the purpose.
Another important point that it made was that banks cannot escape liability by making out a case of contributory negligence on the part of the consumer. In this case, Rs 34,000 had been withdrawn from Venkanna’s account by someone using a forged signature on a withdrawal slip. Holding the bank guilty of negligence, the apex court had ordered a refund of the amount along with 6 per cent interest.
The rights of the affected persons in such cases got strengthened further in the case of Shankar Bhatt vs Punjab and Sind Bank, where the apex court said those who worked in banks ought to have a reasonable degree of intelligence and skill required of a person in that post. Failure to exhibit that skill constituted negligence and banks had to pay for the consequences of such negligence.
In this case, a 72-year-old senior citizen’s entire savings of Rs 15 lakh had been transferred to someone else’s account in the bank, using a forged signature on a letter, which the bank claimed was written by the depositor. The court ordered the bank to pay back the money with 12 per cent interest and also pay a compensation of Rs 50,000.
But in order to pin the responsibility on the bank and get back the money, consumers have to take some important initial steps. First and foremost, one must lodge a written complaint with the bank and get an acknowledgement for it. The depositor also needs to get hold of the cheques used by the forger. If the bank needs it for its investigations, then a photocopy must be obtained. It is also important to lodge a police complaint immediately and get a copy of that, too. In most cases of fraudulent withdrawal, the bank is not willing to accept its mistake and refund the money to the depositor, along with interest and compensation for any suffering caused.
Even when forgery is proved, they try to make out a case of “contributory negligence” against the consumer. That’s where courts come into the picture. Clients can also file their complaints before the banking Ombudsman. In fact, if you look at the cases handled by the banking Ombudsmen around the country, you will find many pertaining to such unauthorised withdrawal of money from depositors’ accounts.
In one particular case, for example, an employee of TCS had complained that the bank (the report does not mention the name of the bank) where he had his salary account had issued a cheque book to someone without his knowledge and passed cheques that were not drawn by him, resulting in withdrawal of a total amount of Rs 9,77,000 from his account. This had happened when he was out of the country on work. The Ombudsman had confirmed that there was fraudulent withdrawal of money by forging the signature of the complainant. So keep a check on your account, and if there is any discrepancy anywhere, be sure to complain and set it right.
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

12 August, 2008

Keep travel papers in order: CONSUMER RIGHTS

Pushpa Girimaji

THERE have been innumerable cases of passengers getting stranded in a foreign country because either the travel agent or the airline failed to inform them about certain travel regulations. In the case of Air India vs Kamdar, for example, the travel agent issued Kamdar and his friends confirmed tickets to travel to Moscow and return in six days, while, according to the rules governing the excursion tickets sold to them, they had to stay in Moscow for a minimum of 10 days to utilise the return tickets. This they came to know only when they arrived at Moscow airport for their return journey and were refused passage.
Similarly, passengers have had to return—after several hours of travel—without reaching their destinations because they were not informed of the transit visa requirements of certain countries. In the case of Harjinder Singh Bajwa vs Thai International, the travel agent who booked the tickets of three senior citizens from Delhi to Vancouver did not inform them that they would need a transit visa for the stopover in the US. The flight had two stopovers—one at Bangkok and the other at Seattle. The airline obviously did not check their visas properly and allowed them to travel to Bangkok.
At the time of boarding at Bangkok airport, they were refused passage on the ground that they did not have a transit visa for Seattle, and were sent back to Delhi.
Here is a case where a passenger, all set to travel to Dubai, was turned back at the international airport. This time it was not the travel agent or the airline that was to blame but the passport officer. Now, the ticket to your travel abroad is the passport. Without it, you cannot step outside the boundaries of your country, nor can you get the visa to enter another country.
In this age of terrorism, where passports are put under a microscope and scrutinised for any signs of forgery or fraud, it is absolutely necessary that your passport is without any blemish.
Given this scenario, imagine landing in a foreign land with a passport that is not even validated by the passport issuing authority with the required signature. The officer issuing the passport had forgotten to put his signature on the seal, and since a person obtaining a passport may not be aware of these requirements, it was never noticed.
Anuradha Gopinath even applied for a visa to travel to Dubai on that passport and was granted the visa.
However, on the day of travel, when she arrived at the international airport and showed her passport, the airline spotted the lacuna and said she could not travel. Imagine a person’s frustration—you make all arrangements for travel, buy your ticket, foreign exchange, pack your bags and then at the time of boarding, you are told that you cannot travel because of a mistake made by a passport officer.
Anuradha then field a complaint before the consumer court in Bangalore, which awarded her Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 2,000 as costs. This was, however, contested by the passport office before the higher courts on the ground that the issuance of the passport did not constitute ‘service’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. In its revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the passport authority argued that the passport officer was exercising a sovereign function and that courts had no jurisdiction to adjudicate over such complaints.
It also argued that no payment was made to the officer towards issue of passport and, therefore, it did not become a consumer case at all. Dismissing such arguments, the apex court pointed out that the passport officer was not exercising any sovereign function, but discharging a statutory duty. Besides, since a fee was charged for issuing a passport, it constituted a ‘service’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, and consumers could seek redressal for any deficiency or negligence in that service.
Said the commission: "A passport, which is issued without the signature of the competent authority, is on the face of it invalid. It would have placed the complainant in a precarious position and she might have been hauled up for various offences if she had tried to go abroad on that passport. Such lapse amounts to a serious deficiency in discharge of duties, which is in the nature of rendering of service. Hence, the complaint is maintainable".
Source:- The Tribune 10 August 2008 Spectrum
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

22 May, 2008

हॉस्पिटल पैकेज डील से ज्यादा नहीं ले सकते

नई दिल्लीः स्टेट कंस्यूमर कोर्ट ने कहा है कि 'पैकेज डील' के तहत कोई हॉस्पिटल या मेडिकल सेंटर मरीज से तय रकम से ज्यादा पैसे नहीं ले सकता। कोर्ट ने कहा कि ऑपरेशन या ट्रीटमेंट के लिए मरीज को तय राशि का पैकेज बताकर इलाज के वक्त उससे ज्यादा रकम ऐंठने के मामले बढ़ रहे हैं। कई समस्याएं बताकर तय रकम से ज्यादा पैसे लिए जाते हैं। अगर कोई हॉस्पिटल, अस्पताल, नर्सिंग होम या मेडिकल सेंटर ऐसी हरकत करता है, तो उसे अनफेयर ट्रेड प्रैक्टिस कहा जाएगा। पीडि़त मरीज कंस्यूमर कोर्ट में इसकी शिकायत कर सकता है।
जस्टिस जे. डी. कपूर की अध्यक्षता वाली स्टेट कंस्यूमर कोर्ट ने जनहित में यह फैसला सुनाया। दिल्ली में मथुरा रोड, सरिता विहार स्थित अपोलो हॉस्पिटल में इलाहाबाद से इलाज के लिए आए मोहम्मद अजमल नामक मरीज ने कोर्ट का दरवाजा खटखटाया था। अजमल की शिकायत के मुताबिक मामला नवंबर 1996 का है। अजमल को पेट में तेज दर्द हुआ। इलाज के लिए वह अपोलो हॉस्पिटल आए। वहां जांच के बाद उन्हें इलाज के लिए 37,500 रुपये का पैकेज बताया गया, मगर ट्रीटमेंट के दौरान 1,60,000 हजार रुपये अधिक वसूल लिए गए। साथ ही दो ऑपरेशन नाकाम रहने पर तीसरा ऑपरेशन भी किया गया। उन्हें आर्थिक नुकसान के साथ मानसिक और शारीरिक पीड़ा भी झेलनी पड़ी।
जस्टिस कपूर ने अपोलो हॉस्पिटल को आदेश दिया कि वह पीडि़त मरीज को 5,00,000 रुपये अदा करे। यह राशि पीडि़त से पैकेज डील से अधिक राशि वसूलने और इलाज के दौरान उन्हें हुई परेशानी के बदले मुआवजे के रूप में देने को कहा गया। कोर्ट ने कहा कि यदि किसी मरीज का पैकेज डील के तहत इलाज किया जाता है तो यह संबंधित हॉस्पिटल या मेडिकल संस्थान की जिम्मेदारी बनती है कि उस वक्त ठीक से जांच कर उसे सही राशि बताएं। एक बार पैकेज बताने के बाद मरीज निश्चिंत हो जाता है कि अब इतने रुपये में उसे छुटकारा मिल जाएगा। जब ट्रीटमेंट के दौरान गंभीर समस्या बताकर उससे पैकेज से अधिक रुपये लिए जाते हैं तो उसे शारीरिक और आर्थिक रूप से झटका लगता है। ऐसा गलत प्रैक्टिस है।
कोर्ट ने कहा कि यदि एक बार किसी बीमारी के इलाज के लिए हॉस्पिटल और मरीज के बीच पैकेज डील हो गई तो ट्रीटमेंट के दौरान कितनी भी समस्याएं क्यों न आएं, हॉस्पिटल को उसी पैकेज के तहत मरीज का इलाज करना होगा। इमरजेंसी बताकर उससे अधिक रुपये नहीं ऐंठे जा सकते।
With Thanks from नवभारत टाइम्स
Source:-नवभारत टाइम्स ,22 May 2008, P.1 New Delhi

21 May, 2008

ऑपरेशन के बाद हुआ बच्चा, मुआवजा देगी सरकार

23 साल पहले एक महिला ने फैमिली प्लानिंग के लिए ऑपरेशन कराया। लेकिन ऑपरेशन नाकाम रहा और वह गर्भवती हो गई। उसने एमसीडी अस्पताल के खिलाफ कोर्ट का दरवाजा खटखटाया। अब कोर्ट ने सरकार से कहा है कि वह इस महिला को बतौर मुआवजा एक लाख रुपये का भुगतान करे। दिलचस्प बात यह है कि ऑपरेशन के बाद महिला को जो बच्चा हुआ, वह 21 साल का हो चुका है।
अडिशनल जिला जज कामिनी लॉ की अदालत ने फैसले में कहा कि अनचाहे गर्भधारण के कारण पैदा हुआ बच्चा (अब बालिग) यह न सोचे कि उसे अदालत यह कह रही है कि वह गलती से दुनिया में आ गया। लेकिन इतना तय है कि ऑपरेशन के बावजूद गर्भवती होने और बच्चा पैदा होने से महिला पर आर्थिक भार पड़ा। बच्चा जब तक बालिग हुआ तब तक पैरंट्स ने उसके खर्चे उठाएं हैं। पैरंट्स लोअर मिडल क्लास से ताल्लुक रखते हैं। बच्चे के लालन-पालन में पैरंट्स ने कुल 86 हजार रुपये खर्च किए हैं। गर्भधारण के कारण उन्हें दूसरी तकलीफों का भी सामना करना पड़ा। अदालत ने सरकार को निर्देश दिया कि वह महिला को अर्जी दाखिल किए जाने की तारीख से लेकर भुगतान की तारीख तक 10 फीसदी ब्याज के साथ बतौर मुआवजा एक लाख रुपये अदा करे।
जज कामिनी लॉ ने कहा कि महिला का सरकारी अस्पताल में लेप्रोस्कोपिक ऑपरेशन हुआ। इसके बावजूद उसे बच्चा हो गया। ऐसे में सरकार इस बच्चे की जिम्मेदारी से नहीं बच सकती। शिकायती के बयान से साफ है कि बच्चे की पढ़ाई आदि में हर महीने उसके 400 से 500 रुपये खर्च हुए हैं।
इसके पहले महिला ने अपनी अर्जी में कहा कि मैं अपने पति और तीन बच्चों के साथ सोनीपत में रहती हूं और लोअर मिडल क्लास फैमिली से हूं। सरकार ने छोटे परिवार का नारा दिया था। इसलिए मैंने सोचा कि दो बच्चों के बाद फैमिली प्लानिंग का ऑपरेशन करा लूं। मैं एमसीडी के अजमेरी गेट स्थित अस्पताल में गई, जहां 4 मार्च 1985 को स्टेरलाइजेशन (फैमिली प्लानिंग से संबंधित ऑपरेशन) किया गया। इस बाबत सर्टिफिकेट भी दिया गया। महिला ने कहा- बाद में मुझे लगा कि फिर से गर्भवती हो गई। इसके बाद जब अस्पताल गई, तो डॉक्टरों ने ध्यान नहीं दिया और लापरवाही दिखाई।
28 अगस्त 1987 को इस महिला ने एक लड़के को जन्म दिया। उसने अप्रैल 1989 में इस अस्पताल के खिलाफ अदालत का दरवाजा खटखटाया और मुआवजे की मांग की। ट्रायल कोर्ट ने सुनवाई के बाद एमसीडी अस्पताल को निर्देश दिया कि वह बतौर मुआवजा महिला को 10 हजार रुपये का भुगतान करे। महिला ने अडिशनल जिला जज की अदालत में अपील कर मुआवजे की राशि बढ़ाने की मांग की। अस्पताल ने भी ट्रायल कोर्ट के ऑर्डर को चुनौती दी।
Source:- नवभारत टाइम्स 20 May 2008 Delhi
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in