Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: comparative chart of corresponding sections of 1983 act Sorted by: old Court: national consumer disputes redressal commission ncdrc Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 1 results (0.020 seconds)

Feb 17 2012 (TRI)

Annu Enterprises India Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgao ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Feb-17-2012

..... complaint within two years from 28.06.1996 when the possession of the plot was delivered to the complainant. the subsequent correspondence between the parties is not to be taken as a recurring cause of action to seek remedy of the act, 1986. 19. on the point of recurring cause of action reference may be made to the observation made by the ..... , the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. in other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of section 24a and give effect to it. if the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality ..... , for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. the expression, shall not admit a complaint occurring in section 24a is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. as a matter ..... unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the district forum, the state commission or the national commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 2012 (TRI)

The Director Jawaharlal Institute for Postgraduate Medical Education a ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Jul-27-2012

..... 1997, the discharge summary has an entry, 14.07.1997 - aqueous andvitreous tap sterile? and also of 19.07.1997 vitreous tap sterile? though the corresponding entry in the treatment chart of 19.07.1997 is of aqueous tap being taken, not vitreousno record any intravitreal (i.e., posterior chamber vitreous cavity of the eye)injection at all. ..... (xv) the patient was discharged on 22/(23?).07.1997, according to the discharge certificate with medication and follow-up at the opd. 11. we may now compare the treatment given and the recommended/standard protocol as per the medical literature cited by the appellant/jipmer: ad>sr. no.standard protocolactual treatment1.preventioni. treatment of pre-existing ..... intravitreal antibiotics. the most important risk factor was poor initial vision. twenty three percent of patients with visual acuity of light perception only achieved 20/40 final vision compared to 64 percent of those with initial vision more than light perception. treatment details 10. with this background of medical literature, we may now look into the ..... currently recommended antibiotics are either amikacin or ceftazidime for cover against many gram-positive and gram-negative organisms, and vancomycin for coagulase-negative and coagulase-positive cocci. amikacin acts synergistically with vancomycin but is potentially more retinotoxic than ceftazidime, which is not synergistic with vancomycin. a. intravitreal antibioticsshould be given after the culture specimens have been obtained .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 2012 (TRI)

M/S. Charan Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M.G. Jai Prakash Rai

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Nov-22-2012

..... appellants to allot a two bed room flat in the first floor of the multi storeyed building constructed by them in the land bearing corporation no.21 corresponding to new no.19, melvelle house grounds, palace cross road, bangalore-560 020 bounded on the east by k.t. apartments, west by plot ..... appellants to allot a two bed room flat in the first floor of the multi storeyed building constructed by them in the land bearing corporation no.21 corresponding to new no.19, melvelle house grounds, palace cross road, bangalore-560 020 bounded on the east by k.t. apartments, west by plot ..... examined is if housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body was service within the meaning of clause (o) of section 2 of the act as it stood prior to inclusion of the expression 'housing construction' in the definition of "service" by ordinance no. 24 of 1993. as ..... in rendering of service of particular standard, quality or grade. such deficiencies or omissions are defined in sub-clause (ii) of clause (r) of section 2 as unfair trade practice. if a builder of a house uses substandard material in construction of a building or makes false or misleading representation about the ..... .18, 19, 20 and 29 at melvelle house grounds, palace road, bangalore and was managing same on behalf of the original owner narayana reddy. in 1983, a partnership firm, namely, m.m. foundation was constituted to develop the property bearing no.19 at the request of original owner. respondent was one of .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //