IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 19/S/2014.                          DATED : 26.09.2016.

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAZUMDAR.

COMPLAINANT             : BINOD KUMAR GUPTA,  

  S/O Late Harsh Narayan Gupta,

  resident of C/O- Harsh Enterprises,

  Nerhu Road, Khalpara,  

  P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.

O.Ps.             1.                      :  BRANCH MANAGER,

   HDFC BANK,

   S. F. Road, P.O.- Siliguri Bazar,

   P.S.-Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling. 734 005.

                                    2.                     : BRANCH MANAGER,

  HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

  C/O.- C- 470, TTC Industrial Area,

  PAWNE MIDC, Navi, Mumbai, Pin – 400 705.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Arun Mishra, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

          The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was a credit card holder of OP No.1.  In the month of March, 2013, he talked with Ashok Mukherjee of Kolkata who disclosed himself as Regional hdofc of Kolkata regional office of HDFC.  The complainant accepted the proposal of health insurance policy on telephone made by said Ashok Mukherjee.  The complainant told the date of birth and other particular to the said Ashok Mukherjee OP No.2.  In the month of March, the complainant got the insurance certificate bearing policy no. 51497579, the complainant also came to know that OP No.2 had insured the petitioner for the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and had charged a sum of Rs.9801/- as insurance premium.  It is contended by complainant that said Ashok Mukherjee told the complainant to purchase insurance policy without making any premium for the period of two years.

Contd……..P/2

-:2:-

Complainant then talked with Ashok Mukherjee and Rakesh Sharma of Insurance Company.  The complainant received a bill against the said insurance policy with demand draft of Rs.17,156.3/-.  The OP No.2 had enjoyed the credit facility from OP No.1 in the name of complainant.  Subsequently, OP No.2 claimed insurance premium from the complainant.  The OP No.2 suspended a credit card.  The act of the OP No.1 and OP No.2 imparted mental torture by making deceive upon the complainant.  Hence, this complaint before this Forum with Redressal.

The OP No.1 appeared and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  OP No.1 admitted the credit card facility of the petitioner.  Complainant was platinum card holder of OP No.1.  The insurance premium was withdrawn from the credit card of the petitioner.  It is also alleges that OP No.2 is a separate entity and there is no relation in between OP No.1 and OP No.2.  The complainant did not pay outstanding amount of credit card and due to non-payment the credit card has been blocked as per agreement.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.

OP No.2 did not appear to contest the case.  So, the case proceeds exparte against the OP No.2.          

          To prove the case the complainant has field the following documents :-

1.       Original copy of Insurance policy being No.51497579 in the name of the complainant.

2.       Original copy of Insurance policy being 51497578.   

3.       Original copy of Credit Card statement issued by OP 1 in the name of the complainant dated 19.08.2013.

4.       Original copy of Credit Card Statement issued by OP No.1 in the name of the complainant.

5.       Original copy of mail dated 19.06.2013 sent by the complainant in favour of OP No.1.

          Complainant has filed evidence-in-chief.

          Complainant has filed Written Notes on argument. 

OP No.1 ha filed Written Notes of Argument.

Points for determination

1.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Contd……..P/3

-:3:-

Decision with reason             

          Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

          From the complaint, and evidence on oath, and from the written version of the HDFC Bank, it is admitted position that complainant had a credit card up to the limit of Rs.50,000/-.  It is also admitted position that HDFC Bank has given the purchases expenses of the complainant to the seller of the insurance policy i.e., OP No.2.  As per terms and conditions, laid down in the credit card agreement, it is the duty of the bank, to make payment within permissible limit.  The OP No.1 has done and discharged his duty rightly in making payment. 

It is case and statement of the complainant that he talked with one Ashok Banerjee of OP No.2 regarding insurance policy.  The document filed by the complainant shows that OP No.2 got all information from the complainant regarding the policy.  In our days of email period, there is no handwriting letter of application, only mailing conversation has been based by OP No.2 and the complainant.  But complainant’s allegation shows he was agreed to purchase the policy of insurance if there had been no charge for the insurance policy.  As per record, complainant became agreed when the OP No.1 sent the bill for payment the amount which has been paid to OP No.2.  So, the complainant’s own case shows that he has prior intention and desire for purchasing policy of OP No.2.  If the credit card number had not been supplied by the complainant OP No.2, with other details then OP No.2 had no chance to get the amount from the OP No.1.

So, this is admitted position that OP No.1 is still owes some money from the complainant and complainant did not pay the same for which credit card has been blocked.  So, in this premises, it cannot be said that HDFC Bank has done any negligence towards the complainant or has adopted any unfair trade practices. 

In this case, OP No.2 did not appear and file written version in spite of getting many days.  But the allegation of the complainant and written version of OP No.1 shows that OP No.2 issued insurance policy and as premium OP No.2 has taken the money from OP No.1.  It is very natural that they must take the price of their product if the same is sold to other persons.  There in existence for making business and to make benefit of the people.  The complainant statement it6self shows and supports the presumption that complainant was well aware regarding the terms and conditions of the policy as the policy has been sent to the complainant and complainant had received this.  Save and

Contd……..P/4

-:4:-

except one email letter, the complainant did not send any written objection or there was no document of conversation between the complainant and the OP No.2.  But fact remains that OP No.2 sold the policy to the complainant and the complainant accepted that policy and the complainant has made payment through the credit card.  So, after deliberation entire conduct of the complainant it cannot be said that OP No.1 or OP No.2 has subjected the complainant by any undue advantages or unfair trade practices or misrepresented the complainant.

So, after deliberation the written notes of the argument and written notes of argument of O PNo.1 and bunch of documents filed by the complainant, we are unable to swallow that OP No.1 & OP No.2 are guilty for any kind of negligence of deficiency in service towards the complainant.  So, the allegation is unable to stand on leg and fails.           

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.19/S/2014 is dismissed on contest against the OP No.1 and dismissed exparte against the OP No.2, but without any cost.

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.