The modern thinking Indian

Normally, dealing with banks is a hot and cold affair. When you have dealings with ATM's and with over the counter in branches, things are fine normally fine. But when there is something that is out of the ordinary, that is when people have more complaints. This could be when there are some delays in credit card payments, or a person is on the edge when qualifying for a loan, or when there is some problem in making the loan repayments. In such cases, it is hard for bank customers to understand all the charges that a bank levies as penalties or extra charges, and this could lead to banks sometimes levying charges that are more than normal.
Consider the following example when a person had bought a motorcycle on loan from HDFC Bank, and was unable to pay some of the installments on time; he was unable to understand some of the charges levied by the bank and filed a case in the consumer forum against these charges (link to article):

Sending a clear message against unfair trade practices, UT consumer forum directed HDFC Bank to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 as litigation cost to Panchkula-resident Sohan Lal. The bank was also asked to issue a no-dues certificate (NDC) and overhaul its client’s account. Consumer forum’s decision came in the wake of allegations laid by Lal stating that the bank had asked him to pay exorbitant bouncing charges.
Holding that the bank adopted an unfair trade practice of charging exorbitant bouncing fees, the forum held, “The bank did not place any document to suggest if it was entitled to charge Rs 400 as bouncing charges.” The forum stated it was not clear that under what provision of law or agreement the bank was fleecing the complainant. “It is very unfortunate that banks are fleecing those who take petty loans for their basic needs,” it stated.

The problem described in this article is something that a number of people have faced when dealing with banks; some fight it out with complaints and a determined quest to ensure that they are not cheated, others don't fight it out and accept whatever the bank ordains for them - in either case, it is still incumbent on consumers to not take any extra charges lying down.

Labels: Bank, Case, Charge, Compensation, Consumer Court, Decision, Delay, Extra Charge, Loan, Penalty, Repayment, Unfair trade practice

Medical negligence is something that is penalized the world over. When a patient goes in for a medical procedure, the person is entrusting their lives to the doctor (s) attending on them. It used to be said earlier that a Doctor is a very respected person, and that it would be unfair to penalize a doctor for some problem that occurs during a medical procedure; this is now countered by the argument that modern hospitals and the medical industry charges market rates for their procedures, and hence are not doing any favors to patients. Further, how do you compensate a patient for a case when the hospital has goofed up or indulged in medical malpractise ? Consider this case where a bright IT person was paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair after a medical procedure (link to article):

In the highest compensation ordered by an Indian court in a medical negligence case, a techie who found himself paralyzed waist down after a surgeon damaged his spinal chord during an operation to remove a tumour in the chest, was awarded Rs 1 crore in damages by the Supreme Court on Thursday. The victim, Prashant S Dhananka, 39, who spiritedly argued his case from a wheelchair he has been confined to since the operation 19 years ago, had sought a compensation of Rs 7 crore.
Dhananka, a senior manager with Infosys earning Rs 1.5 lakh a month and residing in Bangalore, gave vivid details of the gross negligence he suffered at Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS), Hyderabad, and demonstrated the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the high court. NIMS, a semi-government set up, is rated as one of the premier hospitals in the country. While increasing the compensation to Rs 1 crore, the bench comprising Justices B N Agrawal, H S Bedi and G S Singhvi showed both its disgust at blatant attempts by NIMS to wriggle out of its responsibility for the victim's condition and acknowledged the need to provide for the huge medical expenses that Dhananka has had to incur every month since 1990.

It was only some years ago that the Supreme Court had almost refused to penalize the medical fraternity for mistakes made; even now the Court expresses worry at the increasing tendency of bringing medical cases into the legal system, yet there is a necessity to do this, as the Court itself acknowledges - when the institution makes blatant mistakes and then tries to cover up, there is no other option than to order the required punishment.

Labels: Compensation, Consumer, Court, Judgment, Legal, Medical, Punishment, Supreme Court

In India, the police derive their powers from laws enacted during the British time. These laws were meant to enforce the power of the state (and the rulers), and this sentiment drives the power and role of the police. Throughout India, if citizens are polled over the role of the police, you will find it hard to find people who have positive views. This is also my personal view; my interaction with and observations of the police have convinced me that they are generally inclined to enforce the law and protect the rule of law (and there are many honest and great police officers as well), but they also see the law and the threat of force as a way to get benefits for themselves and their masters (who certainly are not the citizens of this country). Further, as every small trader / streetside vendor / other small businessman would volunteer, if you do not keep the local policemen happy, then things will be tough:

AHMEDABAD: Supreme Court has asked additional director-general of police Rajan Priyadarshi to pay Rs 8 lakh towards compensation to the person he assaulted blinding him in one eye, during a demonstration in 1987.
The incident took place on February 1, 1987, when Priyadarshi and then inspector RJ Yadav resorted to lathicharge during a protest demonstration. In this, a Congress leader, who has recently joined BJP, Dr Prafull Thaker was injured and lost his right eye. He moved the court seeking compensation for the injury.

This must be a shock to the police officer, since the police assume that the right to use any amount of force during suppressing a protest is their given right (all the way from the brutal attack on Lala Lajpat Rai during the rule of the British), and the fact that a court could force them to pay compensation was unheard of. In the more advanced nations, powers given to the police are with responsibility and they can be prosecuted for excesses.

Labels: Compensation, Court, Law, Police, Punishment, Violence