Dark Patterns in India: How Digital Platforms Are Deceiving Consumers and What Can Be Done?

 Digital platforms across India are increasingly employing manipulative design tactics to trick users into unintended actions, prompting urgent government intervention and raising serious consumer protection concerns.

What Are Dark Patterns?

Dark patterns are user interfaces that have been carefully crafted to trick users into doing things they originally did not intend or want to do. The term was coined by user experience designer Harry Brignull in 2010, who defined these as deceptive design patterns that manipulate users into actions like buying overpriced insurance or signing up for recurring bills.

Print Page

LLM Notes: Rights of Consumers under the Consumer Protection Act

 The Consumer Protection Act in India, most recently updated in 2019, grants consumers several explicit rights to protect them from unfair trade practices and ensure their interests are safeguarded in the marketplace. These rights are foundational to consumer empowerment and are defined under Section 2(9) of the Act.

Key Rights of Consumers

• Right to Safety

  Consumers have the right to be protected against goods and services that are hazardous to life and property. This ensures that products and services meet safety standards and do not pose risks to consumers’ health or well-being.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Consumer forum should not should reject claim for compensation if offending truck was having national permit

This Court has carefully gone through the permit which is

on record and the National Permit is certainly valid up to

13.10.2017. The authorization fee was required to be paid only

when the truck was moving out of State of Bihar as it was

registered in the State of Bihar and the truck caught fire on

account of short-circuit on 08.06.2014 in the State of Bihar itself

and, therefore, the respondent company could not have

repudiated the claim on such a frivolous ground. The permit in

question was issued by the competent authority in Bihar and,

therefore, there was no requirement of paying authorization fee

when the truck was being used in the State of Bihar and as per

the terms and conditions of the National Permit, authorization fee was required to be paid only when the truck was moving out of State of Bihar. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant was certainly entitled for the insurance claim as held by the State Commission and, therefore, the order passed by the National Commission, dated 19.08.2020, deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.  {Para 8}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVILAPPEAL NO. OF 2025

Shri Binod Kumar Singh  Vs  National Insurance Company Ltd. 

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Dated: February 7 th, 2025. 

Citation: 2025 INSC 154.

Print Page

Whether the person availing banking services is consumer and entitled to get protection of consumer protection law?

 Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(d)(ii) - Consumer complaint alleging premature encashment of Joint Fixed Deposit by bank in contravention of the terms and conditions is maintainable - A person who avails of any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a 'consumer' under the 1986 Act. As a consequence, it would be open to such a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies provided under the 1986 Act. (Para 19)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal Nos 5204-5205 of 2022 

Arun Bhatiya Vs HDFC Bank & Ors.

Coram:  DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD; J., A.S. BOPANNA; J.

Author: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Dated:  August 08, 2022 

Print Page

Whether continuous failure to obtain an occupancy certificate amounts to deficiency of service?

Based on these provisions, it is evident that there was an obligation on the Respondent to provide the occupancy certificate and pay for the relevant charges till the certificate has been provided. The Respondent has time and again failed to provide the occupancy certificate to the Appellant society. For this reason, a complaint was instituted in 1998 by the Appellant against the Respondent. The NCDRC on 20 August 2014 directed the Respondent to obtain the certificate within a period of four months. Further, the NCDRC also imposed a penalty for any the delay in obtaining the occupancy certificate beyond these 4 months. Since 2014 till date, the Respondent has failed to provide the occupancy certificate. Owing to the failure of the Respondent to obtain the certificate, there has been a direct impact on the members of the Appellant in terms of the payment of higher taxes and water charges to the municipal authority. This continuous failure to obtain an occupancy certificate is a breach of the obligations imposed on the Respondent under the MOFA and amounts to a continuing wrong. The Appellants therefore, are entitled to damages arising out of this continuing wrong and their complaint is not barred by limitation. {Para 18}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4000 of 2019

Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.

Author:Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Decided On: 11.01.2022

Print Page

Central Government notification bringing some of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019 in to force on 20 July 2020

1) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VJYZHtjSDLwDuGXBRaIc3H3pmnUutWXt/view?usp=sharing

2) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-1JqZ0sXML6V5LYQazFDPJNN3kmPjrlD/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

When complaint filed before consumer forum will not be barred by limitation?

Strictly speaking, the event that caused the loss or damage to the insured
occurred on 6th August, 1992 when due to heavy incessant rain in Calcutta, the
raw materials, stocks and goods, furniture etc. of the insured were damaged. On
the very next day, the insured lodged a claim with National Insurance. In
response, National Insurance first appointed N.T. Kothari & Co. to assess the
loss suffered by the insured and a report was given by this surveyor after more
than one year. Thereafter, for reasons that are not at all clear, National Insurance
appointed a second surveyor which also took about one year to submit its report
and eventually gave an addendum to that report thereby crossing one year in
completion of its report along with the addendum. In other words, National
Insurance itself took more than two years in surveying or causing a survey of
the loss or damage suffered by the insured. Surely, this entire delay is
attributable to National Insurance and cannot prejudice the claim of the insured,
more particularly when the insured had lodged a claim well within time. To
make matters worse, National Insurance actually repudiated the claim of the
insured only on 22nd May, 2001 which is well after the complaint was filed with
the National Commission.
18. In our opinion, in a dispute concerning a consumer, it is necessary for the
courts to take a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally since it
is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of
services or goods. It is to overcome this disadvantage that a beneficent
legislation in the form of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted by
Parliament. The provision of limitation in the Act cannot be strictly construed to
disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is
instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer’s claim. That
being so, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the National
Commission was quite right in rejecting the contention of National Insurance in
this regard.
REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3883 OF 2007
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
VS.
HINDUSTAN SAFETY GLASS WORKS LTD. 
Dated:April 7, 2017.
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 1900

Print Page

Whether trust can file complaint under consumer protection Act?

 A reading of the definition of the words ‘complaint’, ‘complainant’
and ‘consumer’ makes it clear that a Trust cannot invoke the provisions of
the Act in respect of any allegation on the basis of which a complaint could
be made. To put this beyond any doubt, the word ‘person’ has also been
defined in the Act and Section 2(m) thereof defines a person as follows :-
(m) "person" includes, −
(i) a firm whether registered or not;
(ii) a Hindu undivided family;
(iii) a co-operative society;
(iv) every other association of persons whether registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not

5. On a plain and simple reading of all the above provisions of the Act it
is clear that a Trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer.
Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer
dispute under the provisions of the Act.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3560 OF 2008
Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors.
vs.
Manager, Canara Bank & Ors.
Dated:March 7, 2017.
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 1303,(2017) 3 SCC 712

Print Page

NCDRC directed bank to pay compensation of Rs fifty thousand for delay in processing of cheque

Having heard Learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Complainant, who is on caveat, we are of the view that the Revision Petition is without any substance. On appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties, particularly the pay-in-slip, both the Fora below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the Petitioner had failed to substantiate its stand that the delay in credit of the said amount was because of the reason that the Complainant had failed to mention the Account Number and the account holder's name on the pay-in-slip, at the time of deposit of the cheque. Both the Forums have rejected the stand of the Petitioner that the said particulars were filled up later. The said finding having not been specifically challenged as being perverse, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference in Revisional jurisdiction, more so when the total amount involved in the case is a meagre sum of 50,000/-, which includes the litigation cost.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

(Before D.K. Jain, President and M. Shreesha, Member)

Indian Overseas Bank

V

 R.K. Sharma 

Revision Petition No. 3414 of 2016

Decided on January 2, 2017

Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2

Print Page

Supreme court:Land owner entering into contract with builder for construction is consumer

On a studied scrutiny of the aforesaid clauses, it is clear
as day that the appellant is neither a partner nor a
co-adventurer. He has no say or control over the construction.
He does not participate in the business. He is only entitled to,
as per the MOU, a certain constructed area. The extent of
area, as has been held in Faqir Chand Gulati (supra) does
not make a difference. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is
that the appellant is a consumer under the Act.
22. As the impugned orders will show, the District Forum
had allowed the claim of the appellant. The State Commission
had dismissed the appeal holding that the claim of the
appellant was not entertainable under the Act, he being not a
consumer and the said order has been given the stamp of
approval by the National Commission. Therefore, there has to
be appropriate adjudication with regard to all the aspects
except the status of the appellant as a consumer by the
appellate authority. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the
judgments and orders passed by the National Commission and
the State Commission are set aside and the matter is remitted
to the State Commission to re-adjudicate the matter treating
the appellant as a consumer.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 944 OF 2016
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1633 of 2015)
BUNGA DANIEL BABU 
V
M/S SRI VASUDEVA CONSTRUCTIONS 
& ORS
DATED:July 22, 2016
Dipak Misra, J.

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to charge consumers for plastic bags?

So far as the contention of the petitioner that the corporates are charging the consumers for the bags is concerned, this argument has no substance as the corporates or the shop owners or the dealers in various commodities are giving an option to the consumers as to whether they want to purchase plastic bag or not. If the consumer wants to purchase the bag only then he is provided with the bag wherein he can keep his goods purchased by him. Otherwise, there are no charges levied on the consumer by the corporates or shop owners. Since it is optional, it is always open to the consumer not to buy carrybag made of 40 microns plastic. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions lack merit and are dismissed accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Writ Petition (PIL) Nos. 274 and 244 of 2012

Decided On: 14.11.2014

Appellants: Consumer Education and Research Society 
Vs.
Respondent: Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:V.M. Sahai, Actg. C.J. and R.P. Dholaria, J.

 Citation: AIR2015Guj54

Print Page

Doctor not writing necessary details in prescription-Whether it amounts to medical negligence?

Arvind Shah (Dr.) v Kamlaben Kushwaha [III (2009) CPJ 121]

Date of Decision: 30.04.2009

The complainant alleged that her deceased son, aged 20 years and otherwise healthy, died as a result of medical 

negligence on the part of the appellant doctor (original opposite party) who administered wrong treatment. The 

State Commission awarded to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 5 lakh with interest and costs. In appeal, 

the National Commission, on consideration of the material on record, came to the conclusion that the two 

medical prescriptions, which the doctor sought to deny, could have been written only by him. It also observed 

that though, in the appeal, the doctor admitted for the first time to having treated the patient; he did not produce 

any prescription on record. More important, the two prescriptions available on record did not mention any of the 

patient's complaints/symptoms, the doctor's clinical observations on examining the patient or his diagnosis of 

Print Page