The Supreme Court has advised a petitioner, who allegedly developed 100% lower limb disability after receiving the Covishield vaccine, to pursue a civil suit for damages instead of a writ petition.

The court observed that a writ petition could take years to resolve, while a civil suit might offer quicker relief.

The petition invoked constitutional rights and cited legal doctrines such as parens patriae, absolute liability, and restitution in integrum. 

The petitioner has sought direction against the Union Government and the Serum Institute of India for medical cover, reimbursement of expenses, and compensation for the disability caused by the vaccine. (Praveen Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.)

The court examined whether a teacher’s refusal to promote a student could be deemed a deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

The petitioner, a student, sought compensation after being denied promotion. The court ruled that the teacher-student relationship does not qualify as a service under the CPA, as education is not regarded as a commercial activity.

It clarified that the refusal to promote the student was not a deficiency of service and that education is not governed by the CPA's principles.

Therefore, the court confirmed that education is not a commercial activity and the refusal did not constitute a failure to provide a service.

The District Consumer Court, Lucknow, held Vishal Mega Mart liable for unfair trade practice and service deficiency for charging ₹18 for a carry bag without the consumer’s prior consent.

The complainant was billed ₹616 for a ₹599 shirt, with ₹18 for the carry bag cost, for which he neither requested nor approved.

The Commission relied on Big Bazaar vs. Sahil Dawar (2020), holding that essential packaging cannot be charged without express consent.

Vishal Mega Mart was directed to refund ₹18 with 9% interest, and pay ₹35,000 towards compensation and litigation costs.

The Delhi High Court, in a case involving a lawyer and Max Hospital, Saket, addressed the broader issue of patient harassment and mental trauma during hospital discharge due to billing and insurance delays.

The petitioner, diagnosed with cysticercosis, underwent surgery using a cashless insurance plan from Max Bupa. Due to limited pre-authorisation, the hospital requested the remaining payment upfront.

The patient later accused the hospital of cheating, wrongful confinement, and breach of trust. However, the court ruled that the hospital acted without criminal intent, as the patient had been informed in advance and had chosen a deluxe room beyond his policy coverage.

The court urged immediate regulatory reforms to address such issues systemically.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed allegations against Zomato Ltd. of anti-competitive practices and abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, for levying platform fees, food charges, and delivery fees.

The complaint, filed by senior citizen Lalit Wadher, alleged that Zomato’s pricing practices were excessive and discriminatory.

However, the CCI held that platform and delivery charges do not appear to be unfair and discriminatory, and are transparently communicated with clear opt-out options, especially for tips and donations.

Finding no contravention, the CCI concluded that Zomato's practices do not restrict consumer choice or competition, and no further investigation is necessary. (Lalit Wadher v. Zomato Ltd.)

The SC upheld the right of homebuyers to peacefully protest against builders, emphasizing this as part of their consumer rights.

The Court quashed a defamation complaint filed by M/s A Surti Developers against Mumbai homeowners who had put up banners to highlight their grievances.

The builder alleged that the statements were defamatory, but the Court determined that the language used was neither offensive nor excessive, and the protest was conducted peacefully. 

The Court ruled that HC can examine if any exceptions to defamation charges under Section 499 IPC at the stage of Section 482 CrPC petition. 

Hence, the Complaint against homeowners was quashed.

The Delhi High Court has observed that Lakmé's recent "SPF Lie Detector Test" advertisement appears to be prima facie disparaging towards competing products.

This observation came during a hearing on a lawsuit filed by Honasa Consumer, the parent company of The Derma Co., alleging that the ad unfairly targets its SPF 50 sunscreen by implying it delivers only SPF 20 protection.

Honasa argues that the ad damages its brand reputation, despite its product being certified through in-vivo testing. 

HUL, Lakme's parent Co. expected to argue that the advertisement falls within the bounds of comparative advertising in the next hearing.

The UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that WhatsApp, as a service provider operating in India, falls within the purview of Indian consumer protection laws.

The ruling came in response to an appeal by former IPS officer Amitabh Thakur, whose complaint seeking compensation for a six-hour service disruption was earlier rejected by the Lucknow District Forum.

The district forum had reasoned that WhatsApp was a foreign entity and that Thakur, being a free user, was not a consumer.

The State Commission overruled this, directing the district forum to register the complaint and decide it within 90 days as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Gurgaon District Consumer Commission held Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd. liable for deficiency in service & unfair trade practices for charging ₹7 for a paper carry bag. 

A man purchased clothes worth Rs. 5,000 and was charged Rs. 7 for a paper carry bag. When he demanded for a free bag or a refund, he was denied. 

Citing past cases like Big Bazaar and Lifestyle International, the commission noted that packaging costs must be included in the product price under Section 36(5) of the Sale of Goods Act.

The store was ordered to refund ₹7, pay ₹15,000 for mental harassment, and ₹11,000 as litigation costs.

The Supreme Court has directed FSSAI to submit a report within three months regarding the implementation of Front-of-Pack Warning Labels on packaged foods.

Front-of-pack warning labels are designed to inform consumers about potentially unhealthy aspects of a packaged food product. 

The direction was issued to facilitate amendments to the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Amendment Regulations, 2022.

The PIL was filed by 3S And Our Health Society, seeking mandatory disclosure of sugar, salt, and fat content to aid consumer awareness.

FSSAI informed the Court that an Expert Committee has prepared recommendations, which will be submitted to the Scientific Committee for final review and approval.

The Indian government has introduced draft regulations under the Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011, to regulate gas meters and protect consumers from inaccurate billing.

The rule mandates the testing, verification, and stamping of all gas meters, domestic, commercial, and industrial, before they can be used in trade.

These measures aim to ensure accurate gas measurement, prevent billing disputes, and protect consumers from faulty devices. The draft rules also prescribe periodic re-verification of meters in use to maintain their accuracy.

A transitional period is provided to facilitate smooth implementation without disrupting the gas supply or burdening stakeholders.

The Bengaluru Consumer Commission has ordered liquor retailer Tonique to pay ₹5,000 to a customer for charging ₹14.29 for a carry bag. 

Praveen B bought liquor worth ₹1,585 from Tonique and was charged ₹14.29 for a carry bag displaying the store’s branding. He filed a complaint, calling it an unfair trade practice. Tonique argued that the customer voluntarily chose the bag, was informed about the charge, and had alternatives.

However, the court found the action “unprofessional and unfair,” stating that charging for a bag with store branding amounts to an unfair trade practice.

Tonique was also ordered to refund ₹14.29, pay ₹1 lakh to the Consumer Welfare Fund, and bear the litigation costs.

The Delhi High Court ruled that the Railways are not responsible for theft of a passenger’s belongings unless there’s clear proof of staff negligence or misconduct.

A passenger claimed that his backpack containing valuable items was stolen during a 2013 train journey to Nagpur. He alleged that the train attendant was sleeping and rude, and the conductor was unavailable. He sought ₹84,000 for the loss and ₹1 lakh for mental harassment.

However, the Court found no clear evidence and noted that just because the staff were missing or behaved rudely doesn’t automatically mean the railways are responsible.

The Court upheld the NCDRC’s order and dismissed the compensation plea.

The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal by a developer against a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order, citing an inordinate delay of 1,132 days in filing.

The NCDRC upheld a 2018 State Commission decision directing the developer to compensate a homebuyer with ₹11 lakh for failing to deliver flat possession within 24 months, along with ₹1 lakh for mental agony and ₹20,000 in litigation costs.

The developer attributed the delay to the COVID-19 pandemic and internal firm issues, but the court found these reasons insufficient.

Emphasizing the Consumer Protection Act's role in safeguarding consumers, the court stated that technicalities should not hinder the delivery of timely justice.