Unfair Trade Practices and Deficiency in Service: Legal Remedies
Unfair Trade Practices and Deficiency in Service: Legal Remedies
Unfair Trade Practices and Deficiency in Service: Legal Remedies
Introduction
India is a fast-growing consumer-based economy where people are constantly interacting with sellers, manufacturers, service providers, online sites and public utilities. Although globalization has led to higher competition and technological advancements, which proved to be more accessible and convenient, it has also created new sources of exploitation. Customers are faced with misleading advertising, faulty products, late services, hidden costs, and negligent behavior on a regular basis. These issues raise major concerns about consumer rights and welfare.
Consumers and the market suffer the lack of trust due to unfair trade practices and failure in service provision. Whenever traders opt for deceptive measures or in cases where service providers do not deliver on acceptable standards, consumers lose money, experience and suffer psychological trauma, and inconvenience. Given the imbalance of power between consumers and large corporations, legal protection becomes sine qua non to ensure fairness and justice.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 became the first of its kind in India whereby it enabled regular consumers to avail speedy and inexpensive redressal of grievances. At present, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘the Act’) is the law governing unfair trade practices and in service deficiency that replaced the 1986 Act. The Act was enacted to enhance the consumer rights further and adapt to modern markets, including e-commerce and digital services, the Act provides statutory definitions and remedies against exploitative trade conduct and substandard services.
Section 2(7) of the Act, defines a ‘consumer’ as one who buys commodities or the services offered for personal use but not a resale or commercial purpose.
The Act acknowledges that there are six basic consumer rights:
1. Right to safety.
2. Right to be informed.
3. Right to choose.
4. Right to be heard.
5. Right to seek redressal.
6. Right to consumer education.
Unfair Trade Practices
Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines an unfair trade practice as a trade practice that has the effect of unfairly or deceptively promoting the sale, use, or supply of goods or services through the use of unfair means. The defining feature of an unfair trade practice is its tendency to distort informed choice. Although a consumer may end up averting loss, the practice is still unfair since it compromises transparency and fairness in the market.
False representations about the quality, quantity, standard or usefulness of goods or services; misleading advertisements; false discounts; false guarantees are expressly contained in the definition of unfair trade practices. It also includes practices like hoarding or destroying goods with a view to inflating the price like non-issuing of bills or receipt. Misleading advertisements, such as those made by a celebrity without proper due diligence, are now clearly held under the 2019 Act.
Deficiency in Service
Section 2(11) of the Consumer protection act 2019 defines deficiency as any fault, imperfection, lack, or insufficiency of the quality, nature or manner of performance of a service. Such deficiency may arise from negligence, omission, delay, or failure to perform services in accordance with law or contractual obligations.
Service deficiency does not require deliberate misconduct, a service provider can be held responsible regardless of the absence of malice as long as the service does not meet the standard reasonably expected by a consumer. This liability goes as far as delays, improper performance, lack of reasonable care or promised performance. Banking, insurance, housing construction, healthcare, transport, telecommunications, and digital and online services are some of the services covered by the Act. But services provided free of charge or on a personal service contract are not subject to the coverage of the Act.
Illustrations
Product scams are one of the most common forms of unfair trade practices seen in everyday life. There are many products in the beauty and wellness industry that are advertised with claims such as “guaranteed permanent fairness,” “instant weight loss,” or “complete cure without side effects,” despite lacking scientific validation. Consumers are influenced to buy such products by exaggerated claims and later find out that the claims are not true or they are grossly exaggerated.
Similar practices are often witnessed in the digital market place too. Consumers experience that some online shopping platforms tend to portray branded products using beautiful photos and texts but the consumer receives fake, refurbished, or low quality products when they deliver them. The misrepresentation that takes place initially cannot be ignored even when refunds or replacement is made at a later stage.
The unfair trade practices also occur when the powerful players in the market use their advantage to smother competition or manipulate consumer preference. A prominent case is the level of domination of online search and online advertising by Google in the market. The regulatory bodies in various jurisdictions have discovered that Google favoured its own services in search engines at the expense of its competitors.
Consumers in industries where there is a long-run or high value service usually suffer deficiency in service. Deficiency can occur in the healthcare industry where hospitals cannot provide proper treatment within the right time, reasonable medical care, and failure to provide sufficient information to patients on risks related to the procedure. Misdiagnosis, failure to provide post-treatment services or simply careless follow-ups of patients can also constitute poor service.
Important Case Laws.
In the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, it raised the issue as to whether a statutory housing authority could be considered a service provider by the consumer law, and whether delays, harassment, and arbitrary behavior in the allotment and delivery of a dwelling was a deficiency in service. The Court had decided that the residential transactions of statutory authorities are covered under the definition of the term service in the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 and thus allow the statutory authorities to fall under the jurisdiction of the consumer courts. The rationale was that the Act should be applied in the liberal and consumer-friendly manner; that the authorities acting in similar way should be held liable to the same extent of accountability to acts of arbitrariness and negligence as the individual constructors; and that no compensation should be ordered simply on the basis of pecuniary loss but also the harassment and mental torture that have been caused by incompetence in providing the service.
In the case of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, the question was whether the medical services of the doctors and the hospitals performed in relation to being paid or not are considered as service in consumer protection act and hence the patients could seek redress against medical negligence. The Court held that medical services offered at a fee are considered to be under the category of service as per Section 2 (1)(o) of the Act and that persons seeking treatment are considered consumers whose negligence and deficiency may be compensated subject to few exceptions like services offered totally free. The rationalization of the Court was on the perception that the Act is based on the principle of social welfare statute and must be broadly construed; that professional status such as the Medical Code of Ethics does not impose immunity against consumer litigation; and that an expansion of the consumer law to the medical services increases accountability, patient safety, and redress accessibility.
In Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia, the court considered whether a hospital and its employees had a consumer law liability of gross medical negligence that led to the permanent brain damage and permanent brain damage of a child and whether the parents (who funded the treatment) were consumers as well, and could claim compensation separately as a result of mental agony. The facts were of a minor patient admitted with typhoid who at the hands of a nurse, without appropriate supervision, was injected (Lariago) and experienced cardiac arrest and coma and irreparable brain damage. The Court found the hospital and its staff guilty of medical negligence, established the vicarious liability of the institution but it also identified and recognised the child and the parents as the consumers, and awarded damages to the child due to physical injury, and damages to the parents due to mental agony and trauma. The Court based its reasoning on the high level of care that hospitals owe their patients, the applicability of the vicarious liability on negligent acts of employees, the broad definition of consumer that includes the person paying to have another individual treated and the principle that consumer law can be applied to encompass non-pecuniary damages such as emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life.
Remedies in Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Based on the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, consumer commissions have wide powers to impose both substantive and deterrent remedies in unfair trade practices and service failures. Such remedies are cumulative and a single order may incorporate many forms of relief that is tailored to the severity of the misconduct and the amount of loss incurred.
One core remedy is recovery of the consumer’s position, which can be done by elimination of faults in goods, correction of the deficient services, replacement of the faulty products, or repayment of the price along with the interest in the event that correction or remedy is not possible. Specific-performance type relief may be granted under the commissions in the service cases of housing delays, medical negligence or defective vehicles in terms of completion-of-construction or delivery of possession or re-performance of the service to the standard which was promised.
Compensation is a fundamental part, not only of direct pecuniary loss but also loss as a result, physical injury, non-pecuniary loss including mental agony, harassment, loss of amenities, and loss of expectation of life. Quantum is considered based on the type and length of deficiency, extent of negligence, consumer vulnerability (e.g. child patient, home-buyer), and long-term effects; this is the reason why large amounts have been awarded in housing and medical negligence cases.
In unfair trade practices, such as fraudulent advertisements, misrepresentations and bait marketing, commissions may direct that the practice be stopped or not repeated, issue cease and desist orders, actualisation of misleading statements through corrective advertisements and the forced removal of dangerous or unsafe products and services out of the market or the prohibition of their future production and sale. This way of accessing the market is associated with meeting the standards of safety and fair-trade.
Lastly, in order to be enforceable, orders by consumer commissions are enforceable as decrees of a civil court and gives power to seize property, collect arrears, and where the need arises, command imprisonment in civil prison on a willful failure to comply. All these remedial and enforcement instruments make consumer law a powerful vehicle to deal with unfair trade practices and lapses in service in addition to the normal civil litigation.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides a three-level framework in the dispute resolution in order to make it easily accessible and efficient:
- District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (DCDRC) is the consumer commission that covers claims valued upto ₹1 crore , for prompt and localized redressal of grievances.
- State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC) hears claims of between 1 crore up to 10 crore and hears appeals against district commissions.
- National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) deals with claims of more than 10 crore and is the final appellate authority in the cases that deal with consumer disputes.
In conclusion, trade practices and service failures are unfair practices that negate consumer trust, and fair trade in the market. Justice is not only a compensation to affected consumers but it also encourages ethical business practices. In fact, consumers are safeguarded against cheating and carelessness because both the private and the public service providers are responsible. Remedies target not just compensation but also correction as well as deterrence. The fairness, dignity and trust in the modern economic life can only be maintained with the help of a strong consumer protection framework.
Introduction
India is a fast-growing consumer-based economy where people are constantly interacting with sellers, manufacturers, service providers, online sites and public utilities. Although globalization has led to higher competition and technological advancements, which proved to be more accessible and convenient, it has also created new sources of exploitation. Customers are faced with misleading advertising, faulty products, late services, hidden costs, and negligent behavior on a regular basis. These issues raise major concerns about consumer rights and welfare.
Consumers and the market suffer the lack of trust due to unfair trade practices and failure in service provision. Whenever traders opt for deceptive measures or in cases where service providers do not deliver on acceptable standards, consumers lose money, experience and suffer psychological trauma, and inconvenience. Given the imbalance of power between consumers and large corporations, legal protection becomes sine qua non to ensure fairness and justice.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 became the first of its kind in India whereby it enabled regular consumers to avail speedy and inexpensive redressal of grievances. At present, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘the Act’) is the law governing unfair trade practices and in service deficiency that replaced the 1986 Act. The Act was enacted to enhance the consumer rights further and adapt to modern markets, including e-commerce and digital services, the Act provides statutory definitions and remedies against exploitative trade conduct and substandard services.
Section 2(7) of the Act, defines a ‘consumer’ as one who buys commodities or the services offered for personal use but not a resale or commercial purpose.
The Act acknowledges that there are six basic consumer rights:
1. Right to safety.
2. Right to be informed.
3. Right to choose.
4. Right to be heard.
5. Right to seek redressal.
6. Right to consumer education.
Unfair Trade Practices
Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines an unfair trade practice as a trade practice that has the effect of unfairly or deceptively promoting the sale, use, or supply of goods or services through the use of unfair means. The defining feature of an unfair trade practice is its tendency to distort informed choice. Although a consumer may end up averting loss, the practice is still unfair since it compromises transparency and fairness in the market.
False representations about the quality, quantity, standard or usefulness of goods or services; misleading advertisements; false discounts; false guarantees are expressly contained in the definition of unfair trade practices. It also includes practices like hoarding or destroying goods with a view to inflating the price like non-issuing of bills or receipt. Misleading advertisements, such as those made by a celebrity without proper due diligence, are now clearly held under the 2019 Act.
Deficiency in Service
Section 2(11) of the Consumer protection act 2019 defines deficiency as any fault, imperfection, lack, or insufficiency of the quality, nature or manner of performance of a service. Such deficiency may arise from negligence, omission, delay, or failure to perform services in accordance with law or contractual obligations.
Service deficiency does not require deliberate misconduct, a service provider can be held responsible regardless of the absence of malice as long as the service does not meet the standard reasonably expected by a consumer. This liability goes as far as delays, improper performance, lack of reasonable care or promised performance. Banking, insurance, housing construction, healthcare, transport, telecommunications, and digital and online services are some of the services covered by the Act. But services provided free of charge or on a personal service contract are not subject to the coverage of the Act.
Illustrations
Product scams are one of the most common forms of unfair trade practices seen in everyday life. There are many products in the beauty and wellness industry that are advertised with claims such as “guaranteed permanent fairness,” “instant weight loss,” or “complete cure without side effects,” despite lacking scientific validation. Consumers are influenced to buy such products by exaggerated claims and later find out that the claims are not true or they are grossly exaggerated.
Similar practices are often witnessed in the digital market place too. Consumers experience that some online shopping platforms tend to portray branded products using beautiful photos and texts but the consumer receives fake, refurbished, or low quality products when they deliver them. The misrepresentation that takes place initially cannot be ignored even when refunds or replacement is made at a later stage.
The unfair trade practices also occur when the powerful players in the market use their advantage to smother competition or manipulate consumer preference. A prominent case is the level of domination of online search and online advertising by Google in the market. The regulatory bodies in various jurisdictions have discovered that Google favoured its own services in search engines at the expense of its competitors.
Consumers in industries where there is a long-run or high value service usually suffer deficiency in service. Deficiency can occur in the healthcare industry where hospitals cannot provide proper treatment within the right time, reasonable medical care, and failure to provide sufficient information to patients on risks related to the procedure. Misdiagnosis, failure to provide post-treatment services or simply careless follow-ups of patients can also constitute poor service.
Important Case Laws.
In the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, it raised the issue as to whether a statutory housing authority could be considered a service provider by the consumer law, and whether delays, harassment, and arbitrary behavior in the allotment and delivery of a dwelling was a deficiency in service. The Court had decided that the residential transactions of statutory authorities are covered under the definition of the term service in the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 and thus allow the statutory authorities to fall under the jurisdiction of the consumer courts. The rationale was that the Act should be applied in the liberal and consumer-friendly manner; that the authorities acting in similar way should be held liable to the same extent of accountability to acts of arbitrariness and negligence as the individual constructors; and that no compensation should be ordered simply on the basis of pecuniary loss but also the harassment and mental torture that have been caused by incompetence in providing the service.
In the case of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, the question was whether the medical services of the doctors and the hospitals performed in relation to being paid or not are considered as service in consumer protection act and hence the patients could seek redress against medical negligence. The Court held that medical services offered at a fee are considered to be under the category of service as per Section 2 (1)(o) of the Act and that persons seeking treatment are considered consumers whose negligence and deficiency may be compensated subject to few exceptions like services offered totally free. The rationalization of the Court was on the perception that the Act is based on the principle of social welfare statute and must be broadly construed; that professional status such as the Medical Code of Ethics does not impose immunity against consumer litigation; and that an expansion of the consumer law to the medical services increases accountability, patient safety, and redress accessibility.
In Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia, the court considered whether a hospital and its employees had a consumer law liability of gross medical negligence that led to the permanent brain damage and permanent brain damage of a child and whether the parents (who funded the treatment) were consumers as well, and could claim compensation separately as a result of mental agony. The facts were of a minor patient admitted with typhoid who at the hands of a nurse, without appropriate supervision, was injected (Lariago) and experienced cardiac arrest and coma and irreparable brain damage. The Court found the hospital and its staff guilty of medical negligence, established the vicarious liability of the institution but it also identified and recognised the child and the parents as the consumers, and awarded damages to the child due to physical injury, and damages to the parents due to mental agony and trauma. The Court based its reasoning on the high level of care that hospitals owe their patients, the applicability of the vicarious liability on negligent acts of employees, the broad definition of consumer that includes the person paying to have another individual treated and the principle that consumer law can be applied to encompass non-pecuniary damages such as emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life.
Remedies in Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Based on the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, consumer commissions have wide powers to impose both substantive and deterrent remedies in unfair trade practices and service failures. Such remedies are cumulative and a single order may incorporate many forms of relief that is tailored to the severity of the misconduct and the amount of loss incurred.
One core remedy is recovery of the consumer’s position, which can be done by elimination of faults in goods, correction of the deficient services, replacement of the faulty products, or repayment of the price along with the interest in the event that correction or remedy is not possible. Specific-performance type relief may be granted under the commissions in the service cases of housing delays, medical negligence or defective vehicles in terms of completion-of-construction or delivery of possession or re-performance of the service to the standard which was promised.
Compensation is a fundamental part, not only of direct pecuniary loss but also loss as a result, physical injury, non-pecuniary loss including mental agony, harassment, loss of amenities, and loss of expectation of life. Quantum is considered based on the type and length of deficiency, extent of negligence, consumer vulnerability (e.g. child patient, home-buyer), and long-term effects; this is the reason why large amounts have been awarded in housing and medical negligence cases.
In unfair trade practices, such as fraudulent advertisements, misrepresentations and bait marketing, commissions may direct that the practice be stopped or not repeated, issue cease and desist orders, actualisation of misleading statements through corrective advertisements and the forced removal of dangerous or unsafe products and services out of the market or the prohibition of their future production and sale. This way of accessing the market is associated with meeting the standards of safety and fair-trade.
Lastly, in order to be enforceable, orders by consumer commissions are enforceable as decrees of a civil court and gives power to seize property, collect arrears, and where the need arises, command imprisonment in civil prison on a willful failure to comply. All these remedial and enforcement instruments make consumer law a powerful vehicle to deal with unfair trade practices and lapses in service in addition to the normal civil litigation.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides a three-level framework in the dispute resolution in order to make it easily accessible and efficient:
- District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (DCDRC) is the consumer commission that covers claims valued upto ₹1 crore , for prompt and localized redressal of grievances.
- State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC) hears claims of between 1 crore up to 10 crore and hears appeals against district commissions.
- National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) deals with claims of more than 10 crore and is the final appellate authority in the cases that deal with consumer disputes.
In conclusion, trade practices and service failures are unfair practices that negate consumer trust, and fair trade in the market. Justice is not only a compensation to affected consumers but it also encourages ethical business practices. In fact, consumers are safeguarded against cheating and carelessness because both the private and the public service providers are responsible. Remedies target not just compensation but also correction as well as deterrence. The fairness, dignity and trust in the modern economic life can only be maintained with the help of a strong consumer protection framework.
Introduction
India is a fast-growing consumer-based economy where people are constantly interacting with sellers, manufacturers, service providers, online sites and public utilities. Although globalization has led to higher competition and technological advancements, which proved to be more accessible and convenient, it has also created new sources of exploitation. Customers are faced with misleading advertising, faulty products, late services, hidden costs, and negligent behavior on a regular basis. These issues raise major concerns about consumer rights and welfare.
Consumers and the market suffer the lack of trust due to unfair trade practices and failure in service provision. Whenever traders opt for deceptive measures or in cases where service providers do not deliver on acceptable standards, consumers lose money, experience and suffer psychological trauma, and inconvenience. Given the imbalance of power between consumers and large corporations, legal protection becomes sine qua non to ensure fairness and justice.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 became the first of its kind in India whereby it enabled regular consumers to avail speedy and inexpensive redressal of grievances. At present, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘the Act’) is the law governing unfair trade practices and in service deficiency that replaced the 1986 Act. The Act was enacted to enhance the consumer rights further and adapt to modern markets, including e-commerce and digital services, the Act provides statutory definitions and remedies against exploitative trade conduct and substandard services.
Section 2(7) of the Act, defines a ‘consumer’ as one who buys commodities or the services offered for personal use but not a resale or commercial purpose.
The Act acknowledges that there are six basic consumer rights:
1. Right to safety.
2. Right to be informed.
3. Right to choose.
4. Right to be heard.
5. Right to seek redressal.
6. Right to consumer education.
Unfair Trade Practices
Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines an unfair trade practice as a trade practice that has the effect of unfairly or deceptively promoting the sale, use, or supply of goods or services through the use of unfair means. The defining feature of an unfair trade practice is its tendency to distort informed choice. Although a consumer may end up averting loss, the practice is still unfair since it compromises transparency and fairness in the market.
False representations about the quality, quantity, standard or usefulness of goods or services; misleading advertisements; false discounts; false guarantees are expressly contained in the definition of unfair trade practices. It also includes practices like hoarding or destroying goods with a view to inflating the price like non-issuing of bills or receipt. Misleading advertisements, such as those made by a celebrity without proper due diligence, are now clearly held under the 2019 Act.
Deficiency in Service
Section 2(11) of the Consumer protection act 2019 defines deficiency as any fault, imperfection, lack, or insufficiency of the quality, nature or manner of performance of a service. Such deficiency may arise from negligence, omission, delay, or failure to perform services in accordance with law or contractual obligations.
Service deficiency does not require deliberate misconduct, a service provider can be held responsible regardless of the absence of malice as long as the service does not meet the standard reasonably expected by a consumer. This liability goes as far as delays, improper performance, lack of reasonable care or promised performance. Banking, insurance, housing construction, healthcare, transport, telecommunications, and digital and online services are some of the services covered by the Act. But services provided free of charge or on a personal service contract are not subject to the coverage of the Act.
Illustrations
Product scams are one of the most common forms of unfair trade practices seen in everyday life. There are many products in the beauty and wellness industry that are advertised with claims such as “guaranteed permanent fairness,” “instant weight loss,” or “complete cure without side effects,” despite lacking scientific validation. Consumers are influenced to buy such products by exaggerated claims and later find out that the claims are not true or they are grossly exaggerated.
Similar practices are often witnessed in the digital market place too. Consumers experience that some online shopping platforms tend to portray branded products using beautiful photos and texts but the consumer receives fake, refurbished, or low quality products when they deliver them. The misrepresentation that takes place initially cannot be ignored even when refunds or replacement is made at a later stage.
The unfair trade practices also occur when the powerful players in the market use their advantage to smother competition or manipulate consumer preference. A prominent case is the level of domination of online search and online advertising by Google in the market. The regulatory bodies in various jurisdictions have discovered that Google favoured its own services in search engines at the expense of its competitors.
Consumers in industries where there is a long-run or high value service usually suffer deficiency in service. Deficiency can occur in the healthcare industry where hospitals cannot provide proper treatment within the right time, reasonable medical care, and failure to provide sufficient information to patients on risks related to the procedure. Misdiagnosis, failure to provide post-treatment services or simply careless follow-ups of patients can also constitute poor service.
Important Case Laws.
In the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, it raised the issue as to whether a statutory housing authority could be considered a service provider by the consumer law, and whether delays, harassment, and arbitrary behavior in the allotment and delivery of a dwelling was a deficiency in service. The Court had decided that the residential transactions of statutory authorities are covered under the definition of the term service in the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 and thus allow the statutory authorities to fall under the jurisdiction of the consumer courts. The rationale was that the Act should be applied in the liberal and consumer-friendly manner; that the authorities acting in similar way should be held liable to the same extent of accountability to acts of arbitrariness and negligence as the individual constructors; and that no compensation should be ordered simply on the basis of pecuniary loss but also the harassment and mental torture that have been caused by incompetence in providing the service.
In the case of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, the question was whether the medical services of the doctors and the hospitals performed in relation to being paid or not are considered as service in consumer protection act and hence the patients could seek redress against medical negligence. The Court held that medical services offered at a fee are considered to be under the category of service as per Section 2 (1)(o) of the Act and that persons seeking treatment are considered consumers whose negligence and deficiency may be compensated subject to few exceptions like services offered totally free. The rationalization of the Court was on the perception that the Act is based on the principle of social welfare statute and must be broadly construed; that professional status such as the Medical Code of Ethics does not impose immunity against consumer litigation; and that an expansion of the consumer law to the medical services increases accountability, patient safety, and redress accessibility.
In Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia, the court considered whether a hospital and its employees had a consumer law liability of gross medical negligence that led to the permanent brain damage and permanent brain damage of a child and whether the parents (who funded the treatment) were consumers as well, and could claim compensation separately as a result of mental agony. The facts were of a minor patient admitted with typhoid who at the hands of a nurse, without appropriate supervision, was injected (Lariago) and experienced cardiac arrest and coma and irreparable brain damage. The Court found the hospital and its staff guilty of medical negligence, established the vicarious liability of the institution but it also identified and recognised the child and the parents as the consumers, and awarded damages to the child due to physical injury, and damages to the parents due to mental agony and trauma. The Court based its reasoning on the high level of care that hospitals owe their patients, the applicability of the vicarious liability on negligent acts of employees, the broad definition of consumer that includes the person paying to have another individual treated and the principle that consumer law can be applied to encompass non-pecuniary damages such as emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life.
Remedies in Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Based on the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, consumer commissions have wide powers to impose both substantive and deterrent remedies in unfair trade practices and service failures. Such remedies are cumulative and a single order may incorporate many forms of relief that is tailored to the severity of the misconduct and the amount of loss incurred.
One core remedy is recovery of the consumer’s position, which can be done by elimination of faults in goods, correction of the deficient services, replacement of the faulty products, or repayment of the price along with the interest in the event that correction or remedy is not possible. Specific-performance type relief may be granted under the commissions in the service cases of housing delays, medical negligence or defective vehicles in terms of completion-of-construction or delivery of possession or re-performance of the service to the standard which was promised.
Compensation is a fundamental part, not only of direct pecuniary loss but also loss as a result, physical injury, non-pecuniary loss including mental agony, harassment, loss of amenities, and loss of expectation of life. Quantum is considered based on the type and length of deficiency, extent of negligence, consumer vulnerability (e.g. child patient, home-buyer), and long-term effects; this is the reason why large amounts have been awarded in housing and medical negligence cases.
In unfair trade practices, such as fraudulent advertisements, misrepresentations and bait marketing, commissions may direct that the practice be stopped or not repeated, issue cease and desist orders, actualisation of misleading statements through corrective advertisements and the forced removal of dangerous or unsafe products and services out of the market or the prohibition of their future production and sale. This way of accessing the market is associated with meeting the standards of safety and fair-trade.
Lastly, in order to be enforceable, orders by consumer commissions are enforceable as decrees of a civil court and gives power to seize property, collect arrears, and where the need arises, command imprisonment in civil prison on a willful failure to comply. All these remedial and enforcement instruments make consumer law a powerful vehicle to deal with unfair trade practices and lapses in service in addition to the normal civil litigation.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides a three-level framework in the dispute resolution in order to make it easily accessible and efficient:
- District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (DCDRC) is the consumer commission that covers claims valued upto ₹1 crore , for prompt and localized redressal of grievances.
- State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC) hears claims of between 1 crore up to 10 crore and hears appeals against district commissions.
- National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) deals with claims of more than 10 crore and is the final appellate authority in the cases that deal with consumer disputes.
In conclusion, trade practices and service failures are unfair practices that negate consumer trust, and fair trade in the market. Justice is not only a compensation to affected consumers but it also encourages ethical business practices. In fact, consumers are safeguarded against cheating and carelessness because both the private and the public service providers are responsible. Remedies target not just compensation but also correction as well as deterrence. The fairness, dignity and trust in the modern economic life can only be maintained with the help of a strong consumer protection framework.