Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución N.º 0860-2023/SPCINDECOPI
Date
2024-08-12
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract
En el presente informe jurídico, se analiza principalmente la controversia
contenida en la Resolución N.º 0860-2023/SPC-INDECOPI, en la cual la señora
Montes de Oca denunció a la señora Briceño por (i) cometer un acto de
discriminación en su contra al no haber aceptado el retiro por el importe de
S/30.00 en el agente bancario de su establecimiento por tratarse de un importe
menor y (ii) cometer una infracción al deber de idoneidad al retener su
Documento Nacional de Identidad y agredirla verbal y físicamente.
Con relación a lo anterior, es pertinente señalar que la normativa de protección
al consumidor establece la prohibición para los proveedores de cometer actos
discriminatorios; asimismo, se recoge la obligación de responder por la idoneidad
de los productos o servicios que ofrecen.
Para efectos del desarrollo del presente trabajo, se han empleado los siguientes
instrumentos normativos: Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos,
Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, Constitución Política del
Perú, Código de Protección y Defensa del Consumidor, entre otras fuentes
normativas señaladas en el contenido del informe.
Finalmente, después de un profundo análisis, se concluye con relación al acto
de discriminación denunciado que la señora Briceño no lo cometió al
considerarse que sí existía un motivo justificado para no efectuar el retiro de
S/30.00. Por otro lado, concluimos que sí se produjo una vulneración al deber de
idoneidad al haberse acreditado que se retuvo el DNI de la consumidora sin su
consentimiento y que se la agredió de manera verbal, más no físicamente.
In this legal report, we mainly analyze the controversy contained in Resolution N.° 0860-2023/SPC-INDECOPI, in which Mrs. Montes de Oca filed a complaint against Mrs. Briceño for (i) committing an act of discrimination against her by refusing the withdrawal of S/30.00 at the bank agent located in her business because it was a lower amount, and (ii) committing a violation of her duty of suitability by taking her ID and verbally and physically assaulting her. In relation to the above, it is pertinent to point out that consumer protection regulations prohibit suppliers from committing discriminatory acts; likewise, the obligation to ensure for the suitability of the products or services they offer. For the purposes of this report, the following normative instruments have been used: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, American Convention on Human Rights, Political Constitution of Peru, Consumer Protection and Defense Code, among other normative sources indicated in the content of the report. Finally, after a thorough analysis, we conclude that Mrs. Briceño did not commit the act of discrimination denounced, considering that there was a justified reason for not processing the withdrawal of S/30.00. On the other hand, we conclude that there was a violation of the duty of suitability, as it has been proved that the consumer’s ID was retained without her consent and that she was verbally, but not physically, assaulted.
In this legal report, we mainly analyze the controversy contained in Resolution N.° 0860-2023/SPC-INDECOPI, in which Mrs. Montes de Oca filed a complaint against Mrs. Briceño for (i) committing an act of discrimination against her by refusing the withdrawal of S/30.00 at the bank agent located in her business because it was a lower amount, and (ii) committing a violation of her duty of suitability by taking her ID and verbally and physically assaulting her. In relation to the above, it is pertinent to point out that consumer protection regulations prohibit suppliers from committing discriminatory acts; likewise, the obligation to ensure for the suitability of the products or services they offer. For the purposes of this report, the following normative instruments have been used: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, American Convention on Human Rights, Political Constitution of Peru, Consumer Protection and Defense Code, among other normative sources indicated in the content of the report. Finally, after a thorough analysis, we conclude that Mrs. Briceño did not commit the act of discrimination denounced, considering that there was a justified reason for not processing the withdrawal of S/30.00. On the other hand, we conclude that there was a violation of the duty of suitability, as it has been proved that the consumer’s ID was retained without her consent and that she was verbally, but not physically, assaulted.
Description
Keywords
Discriminación--Perú, Protección del consumidor--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Derecho administrativo--Jurisprudencia--Perú