Govt must strengthen laws to protect animals: PETA India

Claiming that e-commerce giants like Amazon import as much as 80 per cent of the items sold on their platforms, small manufacturers' body has said that their business models do not benefit local industry and are creating jobs of delivery boys only.

"Neither manufacturers nor traders are getting any benefit from the business models of Amazon and Flipkart because they largely import their products from China and Korea and sell here. Nearly 80 per cent of their products are imported," said Anil Bhardwaj, Secretary General, Federation of Indian Micro and Small & Medium Enterprises (FISME).

Bhardwaj said that the global e-commerce players generally source and sell products through their own preferred suppliers and as a result a large number of local manufacturers and traders get crowded out.

He listed out deep discounting and buying products from preferred companies as unfair practices.

"Even if they buy products from local suppliers the commission charged is very high," Bhardwaj said adding that the issues related to unfair practices have been raised with Commerce Ministry on multiple occasions.

FISME maintains that the technology-driven retail is way forward and one cannot be oblivious of the benefits it brings to consumers but at the same time the local industry can also not be ignored given its role in job creation.

"If both traders and local manufacturers are crowded out then how would the local industry survive and employment be generated?" asked Bhardwaj.

As Amazon Founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is currently on his three-day visit to India, the local traders are up in arms against the "unfair" trade practices of the tech giant. Delhi-based Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has launched a countrywide protest against the company and has organised protests across 300 cities.

In a setback to Amazon and Walmart-backed Flipkart, the fair market watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI) has ordered probe into the business operations of both the companies on multiple counts including deep-discounts and exclusive tie-up with preferred sellers.

"For the first time some concrete step has been taken against Amazon and Flipkart who are continuously violating the FDI policy in indulging in a vicious racket of controlling and monopolising not only the e-commerce but even the retail trade as well," CAIT National Secretary General Praveen Khandelwal said after the CCI order.

Tokyo, Feb 25: Japan's Chitetsu Watanabe, recognized at 112 years as the oldest man in the world, has passed away 11 days after he received the Guinness World Record certificate, his family said on Tuesday.

Watanabe died on Sunday night, Efe news reported.

He received the official certificate on February 12 at a nursing home in Joetsu in Niigata prefecture, where he resided.

Soon after being certified as the oldest man, he began to experience a lack of appetite and respiratory problems, the wife of his eldest son told public broadcaster NHK.

Born on March 5, 1907 in a family of farmers, Watanabe moved at the age of 20 to Taiwan, where he worked at a sugar refinery for 18 years before returning to Japan after the end of World War II.

A fan of calligraphy, custard and ice cream, Watanabe told the Guinness team that the key to his long life was laughter.

He was recognized as the oldest male in the world following the deaths in 2019 of German Gustav Gerneth (in October), aged 114 years, and Japan's Masazo Nonaka (in January), at the age of 113, three months older than the German.

It remains to be seen who will be recognized after the death of Watanabe, the only male on the list drawn up by the Gerontology Research Group of the 30 oldest people in the world.

Japan has among the highest life expectancy in the world and the number of centenarians in the country has crossed 71,000, according to the latest government figures.

Since 2000, the number of centenarians censored has quintupled, raising concern for the economic outlook and future workforce of the country - where the birthrate is on a downward trend.

Out of these, 88 per cent are women.

Mumbai, Jun 27: The Bombay High Court observed that COVID-19 patients from poor and indigent sections cannot be expected to produce documentary proof to avail subsidised or free treatment while getting admitted to hospitals.

The court on Friday was hearing a plea filed by seven residents of a slum rehabilitation building in Bandra, who had been charged ₹ 12.5 lakh by K J Somaiya Hospital for COVID-19 treatment between April 11 and April 28.

The bench of Justices Ramesh Dhanuka and Madhav Jamdar directed the hospital to deposit ₹10 lakh in the court.

The petitioners had borrowed money and managed to pay ₹10 lakh out of ₹12.5 lakh that the hospital had demanded, after threatening to halt their discharge if they failed to clear the bill, counsel Vivek Shukla informed the court.

According to the plea, the petitioners were also overcharged for PPE kits and unused services.

On June 13, the court had directed the state charity commissioner to probe if the hospital had reserved 20% beds for poor and indigent patients and provided free or subsidised treatment to them.

Last week, the joint charity commissioner had informed the court that although the hospital had reserved such beds, it had treated only three poor or indigent persons since the lockdown.

It was unfathomable that the hospital that claimed to have reserved 90 beds for poor and indigent patients had treated only three such persons during the pandemic, advocate Shukla said.

He further argued that COVID-19 patients, who are in distress, cannot be expected to produce income certificate and such documents as proof.

However, senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas, who represented the hospital, said the petitioners did not belong to economically weak or indigent categories and had not produced documents to prove the same.

A person who is suffering from a disease like COVID-19 cannot be expected to produce certificates from a tehsildar or social welfare officer before seeking admission in the hospital, the bench noted and asked the hospital to deposit ₹10 lakh in court within two weeks.