Medical Negligence – Professional Indemnity Insurance – Hospital conducted eye camp, resulting in multiple cases of eye infections and loss of vision – Hospital claimed indemnity under insurance policies obtained by doctors – NCDRC ruled insurance policies did not cover hospital’s liability – Supreme Court upheld NCDRC’s decision – Hospital not beneficiary of insurance policies held by individual doctors – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-18].

Privity of Contract – Insurance Coverage – Insurance policies were professional indemnity policies for doctors, not hospital – Negligence findings against hospital and staff, not individual doctors – Hospital cannot claim indemnity under policies not covering it or its staff – District Forum and State Commission erred in holding insurer liable [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – NCDRC’s judgment upheld – Hospital may pursue other legal remedies against potentially negligent parties – Disbursed compensation confirmed [Paras 16-18].

Compassionate Appointment – Revision of Post – Respondent appointed as Record Clerk on compassionate grounds despite qualifications for Junior Assistant – High Court directed revision to Junior Assistant retrospectively – Supreme Court held respondent’s acceptance of Record Clerk post with undertaking precluded later challenge – Appointment revision contrary to service jurisprudence and affects similarly situated candidates – Appeals allowed, High Court’s order set aside [Paras 1-14].

Estoppel and Service Jurisprudence – Respondent estopped from challenging Record Clerk appointment after accepting post with undertaking – Service revision based on GO Ms No 1499 misinterpreted – Collector’s role in vacancy allocation procedural, not obligatory for appointment – Directions for retrospective appointment and promotion unsustainable [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Promotion consideration unaffected by impugned direction [Para 13].

Consumer Law – Limitation for Filing Complaint – Respondent's registration for house allotment under General Registration Scheme, 1985, was cancelled in 2000 for non-payment of seed money – Respondent filed consumer complaint in 2011 after Housing Board's 2009 policy decision on restoration of cancelled registrations – Supreme Court held complaint time-barred under Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act – Cause of action arose on cancellation date, not policy decision – Consumer forums must adhere to limitation period – Appeals allowed, NCDRC's order set aside [Paras 1-14].

Evaluation of Default and Restoration Policy – No formal allotment made – Respondent failed to pay seed money despite multiple notices – Registration cancellation in 2000 undisputed – 2009 policy not applicable as cancellation due to respondent's default – Complaint filed beyond two-year limitation period – Consumer forum's order erroneous [Paras 8-11].

Decision – Appeals allowed – NCDRC’s judgment set aside – Appellant to refund registration money if respondent unwilling to accept allotment at current rates [Para 14].

Compassionate Appointment – Assessment of Family Pension – Appellant rejected respondent's application for compassionate appointment based on merit points, considering family pension of Rs 8265 per month – Tribunal and High Court directed reconsideration, stating pension would reduce to Rs 4959 after ten years – Supreme Court held pension on date of consideration is relevant – Policy mandates considering financial position at time of application – Compassionate appointment is to tide over immediate crisis, not a vested right – Appeal allowed, High Court's judgment set aside [Paras 1-14].

Evaluation Criteria – Pension is not an extraneous circumstance – Authorities must evaluate financial position per policy – Reassessment after ten years not a basis to discard current pension – Uniform criteria applied to all applicants – Granting appointment contrary to scheme's objective [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment and order set aside – OA filed by respondent dismissed [Para 14].

Succession Law – Will Execution – Validity – Execution of will (Ex-P1) by testator E. Srinivasa Pillai questioned – Appellants argue will is concocted, testator was paralyzed and bedridden before death – Respondents fail to prove will to Court’s satisfaction – Division Bench reverses Trial Court judgment without detailed reasoning [Paras 1-23].

Proof of Will – Legal Requirements – Sections 63 and 68 – Propounder must prove the will's execution by examining attesting witnesses – Suspicious circumstances must be removed – Will’s validity questioned due to testator's health, lack of registration, and unexplained delay in probate proceedings [Paras 25-29].

Judicial Approach – Appellate Court’s Duty – Reversal of Trial Court’s decision requires detailed reasoning – Division Bench failed to provide adequate reasons for setting aside Trial Court's findings – Reversal without proper scrutiny of evidence not sustainable [Paras 30-44].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Division Bench judgment set aside – Trial Court’s judgment restored – Parties to bear their respective costs [Paras 43-44].

Employment Law – Wrongful Termination – Reinstatement without Back Wages – High Court ordered reinstatement but denied back wages – Supreme Court addresses whether denial of back wages was justified – Back wages are generally awarded in cases of wrongful termination unless specific circumstances justify otherwise [Paras 1-11].

Burden of Proof – Gainful Employment – Burden of proof on employer to show gainful employment of the employee during the period of wrongful termination – Appellant stated he was not gainfully employed; burden shifts to employer to prove otherwise [Paras 6-10].

Quantum of Back Wages – Considering partial earnings of the appellant during the period of termination – Court balances interest of justice by awarding a reasonable amount as back wages [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Appellant awarded Rs. 80 lakhs as back wages – Amount to be paid within six weeks – No order as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Electricity Law – Captive Consumers – Additional Surcharge – Captive consumers/users are not liable to pay additional surcharge under Section 42(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 9 permits captive generation and distribution to captive users without State Commission's permission – Appellate Tribunal's decision upheld [Paras 1-15].

Statutory Interpretation – Sections 9 and 42 of Electricity Act – Captive generation and use are statutorily provided and do not require State Commission's permission – Additional surcharge under Section 42(4) applicable only to consumers receiving supply with State Commission’s permission – Captive consumers form a distinct class, exempt from additional surcharge [Paras 9-14].

Refund of Additional Surcharge – Distribution licensee directed to adjust additional surcharge recovered from captive consumers against future wheeling charges – Avoids imposing immediate financial burden on the distribution licensee [Para 16].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Captive consumers exempt from additional surcharge – Distribution licensee to adjust previously recovered surcharge in future bills [Paras 15-17].

Consumer Protection – Amendment of Complaint – Insurer's repudiation of claim after complaint filed – Whether appellant can be compelled to amend complaint to challenge repudiation – Appellant contends relief sought includes payment of due amount, making amendment unnecessary – NCDRC erred in directing amendment and allowing written statement – Appellant should decide on amendment, continuation, or withdrawal of complaint [Paras 1-13].

Dominus Litis – Right to Amend Pleadings – Plaintiff/complainant’s prerogative to amend pleadings – Appellant cannot be forced to amend complaint against their decision – NCDRC’s order deprives appellant of rights under existing complaint [Paras 9-13].

Constitution Bench Judgment – Reference to Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited (2020) 5 SCC 757 – Written statement not filed within statutory period – NCDRC order contravenes mandatory timelines for filing written statements under Consumer Protection Act – Rights and options available to appellant clarified [Paras 7-14].

Decision – NCDRC order set aside – Appellant has options: pursue current complaint, amend complaint, or withdraw and file fresh complaint – Respondent's right to file written statement preserved depending on appellant's choice [Paras 14-16].

Environmental Law – Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance – Central Government's power to grant ex post facto EC under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Generally disfavored but permissible in specific circumstances with strict compliance to environmental norms – High Court's decision vacating interim orders allowing operation set aside – Emphasizes balance between environmental protection and economic consequences [Paras 1-28, 83-94].

Judicial Review – Proportionality Principle – Assessment of the economic impact on livelihoods and operation of the plant against the procedural violation of environmental clearances – High Court’s discontinuation of interim relief not proportionate to potential harm to economy and employment [Paras 88-94].

Economic Considerations – Impact on Employment – Court considers broader implications on employment and economy due to immediate cessation of plant operations – Importance of compliance with environmental norms balanced with potential socioeconomic repercussions [Paras 82-84, 88-94].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s order vacated – Interim orders restored – Central Government to decide on the application for revised EC within three months – Plant operations not to be interfered with pending decision [Paras 95].