|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The year 2006 will be remembered for the concerted efforts made by the government (read Union Minister for Consumer Affairs) to wake up the slumbering consumer through a sustained campaign. Aptly named Jago Grahak Jago, the ministry’s advertisements exhorting consumers to wake up to their rights hogged the print as well as the electronic media throughout the year. The year also marked the completion of two decades of the consumer protection law. The consumer courts constituted under the law may not have fulfilled the promise of “speedy” redressal during these twenty years, but they have contributed in no small measure to the empowerment of consumers in the country. Given the kind of problems that consumers face vis-à-vis goods and services, 2.7 million cases in two decades is not a big number, but it shows that the consumers are certainly making use of the parallel justice system and slowly the number of consumers seeking justice through these courts is growing. The year also saw a discernible shift in the attitude of those who deliver justice. In fact during the year, there was ample evidence of the consumer courts finally moving away from their conservative approach to consumer justice. Perhaps taking a cue from the civil courts, the consumer courts too finally began to take a more pro-active stand. This was not only evident from many of the orders of the consumer courts, but also from the conference organised by the apex consumer court during the year, wherein the presiding officers of the consumer courts came down heavily on the insurance companies for their anti-consumer practices and called for an attitudinal change vis-à-vis the consumer. There were several path-breaking orders, particularly in the area of medical negligence that upheld the rights of patients to emergency medical care, medical records and information. For several years, the consumer courts had ignored the provision in the Consumer Protection Act pertaining to issuance of corrective advertisements. This year saw an important order wherein the apex court not only attacked surrogate liquor advertisements, but also upheld the order of a State Commission directing issue of advertisements to correct the impression created by the advertisements that surreptitiously promoted liquor brands. But on the issue of consumer safety, our track record continued to be dismal. Train accidents happen every year and 2006 was no exception. However, the Bhagalpur accident where an old abandoned bridge fell on an overcrowded railway coach, killing and injuring passengers made one feel that the Railways had lost all sense of responsibility. Absence of safety in inland water transportation also came up again and again during the year. First it was the boat accident at the Wular lake near Srinagar, where 21 children who went on a joyride in an assault boat of the Indian Navy died. The cause of the accident was overloading of the boat and absence of safety equipment. Soon after, Ballabgarh in Haryana witnessed an equally tragic boat mishap, for the same reasons. But worse, here the contractor who had been given the job of ferrying passengers across the Yamuna canal had pressed into service a fishing boat instead of a passenger boat as required under the contract. Of course, those who were supposed to ensure that he fulfilled his contractual obligations had failed completely in their duty. In its order (delivered in 2006) pertaining to another boat mishap that had happened at the Sursagar lake near Vadodara in 1993, the apex court made it clear that it would not condone such dereliction of duty. It therefore held in this case that the civic authority was as liable as the boat service provider, for failing to ensure the safety of passengers. Yet, the transportation safety issues did not attract as much attention as the safety of aerated drinks. The report of the Centre for Science and Environment on pesticide residues in aerated drinks threw up heated debates on whether or not to ban cola drinks. But what was lost in all that sound and fury was the central issue of food and water safety and the need for our safety laws to keep pace with international standards. On the price front, 2006 was particularly tough on consumers. Despite government promises to contain inflation and curb price rise, essential food items continued to register an upward swing, making it extremely difficult for consumers to balance their household budgets. All in all, it was a year of mixed fortunes, with bad news taking a bigger share. However, the year ended on an optimistic note, thanks to the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, which signed on the National Consumer Day (December 24) an MOU with FICCI, for the establishment of a dedicated centre for the promotion of responsible business. Called the FICCI Alliance For Consumer Care, it is expected to promote responsible business practices and facilitate prompt redressal of consumer grievances. That is something that consumers can look forward to in 2007.
|
|||
|
|
|||
