This document summarizes the key aspects of the Consumer Protection Act (COPRA) in India, including definitions of a consumer and service, consumer rights and responsibilities, redressal mechanisms, and case studies. It defines a consumer as someone who buys goods or services, and outlines their rights such as safety, information, choice, and representation. It describes the 3-tier system for consumer disputes redressal commissions at the district, state, and national levels. Case studies demonstrate how the act has been applied, including rulings around medical negligence liability and granting compensation to both patients and their families.

1. COPRA
Consumer protection Act,1986

2. CONSUMER
For the purpose of
goods:
For the purpose of
services:
One who buys any goods for consideration; and any user of such goods other
than person who actually buys it, provided such use is made with the approval
of the buyer.
One who hires any services or services for consideration; and any beneficiary of such services (s)
provided the service is availed with the approval of such person who had hired the service for a
consideration.
*The consideration for either the goods or services may be either paid or promised, or partly paid or promised, or provided under a
system of deferred payment.

3. CONSUMER
RIGHTS RESPONSIBILITIES
Right to Safety Be quality conscious
Right to Information Beware of misleading ads
Right to Choice Responsibility to inspect a variety of goods
Right to Consumer Education Collect proof of transaction
Right to seek Redressal Consumers must be aware of their rights
Right to be Heard/Right to Representation Complaint for genuine grievances
Proper use of product/services

4. CASE STUDY 1:
Indian Medical Association v V.P. Shantha and others
In deciding this case of deficiency of medical service, the court held that the services rendered by
a medical professional fall within the ambit of ‘services’ under the section 2(1)(o) of the Act. It
rejected the contention that a medical practitioner, being a professional and falling under the
scope of Indian Medical Council Act, stands excluded from the CPA/COPRA.

5. CASE STUDY 2:
• Arvind Shah (Dr.) v Kamlaben Kushwaha
• In this case, the complainant alleged that his son died due to the administration of a wrong treatment by the doctor.
The State Commission upholding negligence provided a compensation of five lakh rupees.(RIGHT TO
REPRESENTATIOMN)
• In appeal, the National Commission observed that the two prescriptions that were available on record neither
contained any description of the symptoms that the patient was experiencing nor did it have any preliminary vital
information that a doctor is mandated to check, as per the guidelines and regulation of the Medical Council of India
or the concerned State Medical Council, like body temperature, blood pressure, pulse rate, prior medical history et
cetera. If further tests were required for the diagnosis, such was also mandated to be mentioned. The commission,
following the case of Samira Kohli v Dr Prabha Manchanda [I (2008) CPJ 56 (SC)], held that failure to put such
essentials in the prescription amounted to medical negligence. The Commission also noted that availability of such
essentials, clinical observations and consent of the patient, point towards the care and diligence of the doctor and
act as evidence against frivolous cases of medical negligence.
• However, due to lack of available evidence (Collect proof of transaction)that attributed the death of the patient
directly to the negligence, the National Commission reduced the compensation to two and a half lakhs along with
the interest thereon.

6. CASE STUDY 3:
[SYMPATHY SHOULD NOT INFLUENCE COMPENSATION]
• Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences v Prasanth S. Dhananka & Ors.
• In this case, the complainant claimed for compensation due to alleged medical negligence before, during and after a medical
procedure that led to a partial paralysis of the patient. The National Tribunal ruled medical negligence stating various lapses in
all three phases mentioned including on the ground that consent of the patient was taken only for the examination of the
tumor and not for its removal.
• In the appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed the findings of the Commission and stated that the removal of the tumor was
deferred through discussion on record and therefore an implied consent cannot be inferred.
• The court recognised that a balance has to be struck between the inflated demands of the victim and the unreasonable claim
of the opposition party that on compensation needs to be paid. It recognised that sympathy for the victim should not come in
the way while deciding compensation but the court should not refuse to provide “adequate compensation”. In light of this and
the peculiar facts of the case, it increased the sum of compensation to twenty-five lakhs each for the continuous medical
expenses that need to be borne and the loss of employment that the petitioner had suffered. Additionally, compensation for
the pain and suffering that the appellant had undergone amounting to ten lakhs, for the expenses of a driver-cum-attendant
for thirty years amounting to seven lakhs and twenty thousand, for nursing care amounting of fourteen lakhs and forty
thousand and physiotherapy expenses of thirty years amounting to ten lakhs and eighty thousand along with interest of 6%
was also granted.

7. WHO CAN FILE A COMPLAINT?
Any recognised voluntary consumer association whether the consumer is a
member of that association or not
The Central or any State Government;
One or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having same
interest. E
Legal heir or representative in case of death of a consumer.
A consumer;

8. CASE STUDY 4:
[BOTH PARENTS AND MINOR CAN CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION UNDER CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT]
• Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr v Harjol Ahluwalia
• This appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by a hospital defending the
negligence of its nurses and a doctor which resulted in a minor being in a permanent
vegetative state subsequent to a brain haemorrhage. The issues revolved around
whether the parents of the child, not being the patient themselves, can ask for
compensation for mental agony caused to them. The court held that the definition of
services in the CPA is wide enough to include both the parents who pay for the
services and the child who is the beneficiary of the services. The National Commission
was found correct in its approach as it granted compensation to the child for the cost
of equipments and recurring expenses that he would have to bear owing to his
vegetative state, whereas the compensation provided to the parents was for the
agony caused and the lifetime care that the parents would have to provide.

9. AN UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE OR A RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICE ADOPTED BY ANY TRADER OR
SERVICE PROVIDER
GOODS BOUGHT BY HIM OR AGREED TO BE BOUGHT BY HIM SUFFER FROM ONE OR MORE DEFECT
SERVICES HIRED OR AVAILED OF, OR AGREED TO BE HIRED OR AVAILED OF, SUFFER FROM DEFICIENCY
IN ANY RESPECT;
PRICE CHARGED IN EXCESS OF THE PRICE
FIXED BY OR UNDER THE LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE
DISPLAYED ON THE GOODS OR THE PACKAGE
DISPLAYED IN THE PRICE LIST, OR
AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES
GOODS OR SERVICES WHICH ARE HAZARDOUS OR LIKELY TO BE HAZARDOUS TO LIFE AND
SAFETY WHEN USED.
WHAT COMPALINTS CAN BE MADE?

10. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONS
District Commission State Commission National Commission
1. Composition president(district judge)+
>2 members
1 women
president(high judge)+
>2 members
1 women
president(supreme
judge:retd../prst..)+
>2 members
1 women
2. Jurisdiction Compensation: <20 L. Compensation: 20 L. to 1 Cr. Compensation: >1 Cr.
4. Appeal “30 days after date of order of
Dist.. Commission”
“30 days after date of order
of
Dist.. Commission”
“30 days after date of order
of
state.. Commission”
3.Area In every district In every state Janpath Bhawan (Old Indian Oil
A Wing, 5th Floor, Janpath, New Delhi.