Delhi HC Sets Aside NCDRC’s Single-Member Order, Holds Final Disputes Must Be Decided By At Least Two Members

Niva Bupa challenged an NCDRC order dated 2 July 2026 in a first appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The High Court allowed an application for early hearing and, with the parties’ consent, heard the petition finally.

Section 20(1-A)(i)–(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that the National Commission may exercise its jurisdiction through Benches constituted by the President with one or more members, and prescribes how differences of opinion among Bench members are to be resolved.

The Court read the provision concerning differences of opinion as contemplating a Bench of at least two members for final adjudication, and relied on the Bombay High Court’s decision in Ankita Developers v. Pramod Ghate, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 10503, which treated a single-member NCDRC order as coram non judice in the circumstances before it.

Although Section 20(1-A)(ii) permits the President to constitute a Bench of one or more members, the Court considered that sub-clause (iii), addressing differences of opinion and majority decisions, envisages at least two members for determining a dispute.

Applying that interpretation to the impugned final order, which had been passed by a single-member Bench, the Court held that the order could not be sustained. The respondent’s concession and the Bombay High Court decision supported that conclusion.

It set the order aside and remanded the matter to the NCDRC for fresh consideration in accordance with law; pending applications were also disposed of.