SC: Menstrual Health is a Fundamental Right under Article 21; Orders Free Sanitary Pads in Schools  ||  Supreme Court: Industrial Court is the Proper Forum to Decide Issues Relating to Contract Labour  ||  Supreme Court: Only Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction Can Extend Arbitral Tribunal’s Mandate  ||  SC: Demolition of Private Property Must Rest on Clear Statutory Grounds and Due Consideration  ||  SC: After Complaint Was Withdrawn, BCI Disciplinary Committee Could Not Penalise Advocate  ||  MP HC: Decree Holder Cannot Defeat Compromise or Initiate Execution by Refusing Debtor’s Cheque  ||  MP HC: Spouse’s Income Cannot Be Clubbed With Public Servant’s for Disproportionate Assets Case  ||  Ker HC: Bar Association is Not Employer & Cannot Form Internal Complaints Committee under POSH Act  ||  SC: Ex-Contract Workers Must Be Preferred When Employers Replace Contract Labour With Regular Staff  ||  SC: Waqf Tribunals Cannot Hear Claims over Properties Not Listed or Registered under Waqf Act    

SC: Reconsideration Required of the Judgement That Brought Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act - (15 May 2024)

CONSUMER

Supreme Court while deciding whether advocates can be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has observed that the judgement that brought doctors under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 also requires reconsideration.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT   RECONSIDERATION   DOCTORS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved