SpeakUp

The Consumer Protection Act of 2019 defines a “consumer” under Section 2 as follows:  “consumer” means any person who— (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— (a) the expression “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment; (b) the expressions “buys any goods” and “hires or avails any services” includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing.

Prof Bejon Misra on the Unfortunate and Iniquitous Indian Dichotomy in Tobacco Legislation “Merely increasing taxes on certain tobacco products is not a wholesome solution. If the laws cause discomfort to the addicted consumers, it will only push them into a more rebellious and devil-may-care stance. Why not consider educating people about the rampant harmful effects of tobacco consumption and encourage them on the path from addiction to deaddiction by once again starting the 24×7 Toll Free Tobacco Control Helpline and promoting deaddiction centres, apart from a comprehensive policy to address the root cause of ineffective tobacco law and its enforcement.  Come to think of it – Can we consider bringing in a complete ban on tobacco products – aka prohibition – where tobacco is sold only under licenses where necessary? Tobacco is a silent killer – it causes a lifetime of misery and suffering for both the addicts and their families. But will such discriminatory and knee jerk reactions resolve the issues? The government should consider better mechanisms for safeguarding public health that do not cause unnecessary discomfort to the helpless, voiceless, legitimate and addicted consumers.” Attachment: Article Dichotomy of Tobacco Amendment Bill (PDF)

Report on Supreme Court Judgments for the Consumers -by Law Student, Abhishek Nema This report is exclusively brought to you by an intern of Consumer Online Foundation in the form of a brief analysis of 3 judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court of India for the benefit of the consumers of the country. With a personal touch and easy to understand language, this report talks about the window of appeal in any consumer matter, the power of review of the Courts and an effect of the 2002 Amendment. Have you ever been denied your insurance because you got late to inform the Insurance Company about your claim? If yes, this is what you need to know. Attachment: Snippets by Abhishek Nema (PDF)

RBI Proposes “One Nation One Ombudsman” Source: “One Nation One Ombudsman” approach for grievance redressal. (2021). The Hindu Business Line. [online] 5 Feb. Available at: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/one-nation-one-ombudsman-approach-for-grievance-redressal/article33760595.ece [Accessed 21 Apr. 2021]. Dated: 5th February, 2021 The Reserve Bank of India, on Friday, proposed the ‘One Nation One Ombudsman’ approach for grievance redressal, in a move aimed at enhancing consumer protection. “To make the alternate dispute redress mechanism simpler and more responsive to the customers of regulated entities, it has been decided to implement, inter alia, integration of the three ombudsman schemes and adoption of the ‘One Nation One Ombudsman’ approach for grievance redressal,” said the Statement on Developmental and Regulatory Policies. This is intended to make the process of redress of grievances easier by enabling the customers of the banks, NBFCs and non-bank issuers of PPIs to register their complaints under the integrated scheme, with one centralised reference point, it said. The Integrated Ombudsman Scheme will be rolled out in June 2021. As an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, three ombudsman schemes – Banking Ombudsman Scheme, Ombudsman Scheme for Non-Banking Financial Companies and Ombudsman Scheme for Digital Transactions – are in operation from 22 ombudsman offices of the RBI located across the country. The RBI had operationalised complaint management system portal as a one-stop solution for alternative dispute resolution of customer complaints not resolved satisfactorily by the regulated entities. “The proposed Integrated Ombudsmen Scheme combining the schemes of banks, NBFCs and Non-Bank Prepaid Payments Issuers will help in easy lodging of customer grievances and addressal. It is a step in the right direction for improving the customer service in banks,” said Rajkiran Rai, Chairman, Indian Banks’ Association and Managing Director and CEO, Union Bank of India. ‘A welcome move’ Mandar Agashe, Founder and MD, Sarvatra Technologies, said with interoperability among various payment systems on the rise, the RBI’s new ombudsman approach is a welcome move. “It’s a big step to bring more effectiveness and speed similar to one nation one card,” he said.

While the proposed ODR system seems to be a hopeful path for “boosting digital payments and enhancing the broader financial ecosystem“, the issues that may arise out of it must not be overlooked: Firstly, the links between the various modes of lodging complaints must be analyzed, improper communications between the modes and the PSOs may create distortions and thus lead to ambiguities, which may have severe consequences.

Although the RBI specified in its notification that the system, for the time being, is limited only to disputes and grievances arising out of failed digital transactions, including those which have not been fully completed due to reasons unrelated to the customers (technical issues) such as failure in communication links, non-availability of cash in an ATM, time-out of sessions, etc. Apart from these, the system also includes those transactions whereby the amount has not been credited to the beneficiary’s account due to a lack of adequate information or delay in the initiation of a reversal transaction.

The goal of the system is to provide a “transparent, rule-based, system-driven, user-driven, unbiased mechanism for resolving customer disputes and grievances, with zero or minimal manual intervention.” In other words, the main objective of this system is to enable a dispute resolution system that is not only transparent and unbiased but also provides redressal for consumer grievance with minimal or zero human intervention.

As rightly said by Dave Chapelle “Modern Problems requires modern solutions”. The only good outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic was that the digital economy saw a global revolution. Preventive measures such as lockdowns, social distancing, etc., which limited the scope of human interactions (all of which were a result of the pandemic), led to most forms of trade and communication being shifted online thereby increasing an individual’s dependence on such digital transactions. Each transaction involves a cost which is fulfilled in the form of digital payment. While this can be treated as a great leap forward, such a change is not devoid of certain inevitable issues.

The Patents Act, 1970 provides patent protection in India which is compliant with Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and has been adopting and implementing the provisions. To obtain a patent protection in India, apart from the patentability criteria-novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability, the invention must not fall within the ambit of Section 3 and 4 of the Act. As any digital health application works on software and a computer program, Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act is relevant which precludes patentability of a computer program per se. Recently, the Delhi High Court has iterated that all computer programs are not barred under Section 3(k) and when such program demonstrates a ‘technical effect’ or a ‘technical contribution’, the invention would be patentable.

The key issues in sharing personal data are primarily, but not limited to: the transparency and control of data exchange; security and privacy; and information, trust, responsibility and accountability. Such considerations can change during data sharing, particularly data protection and privacy, as this is an important concern.