IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE. S. TAMILVANAN, PRESIDENT
THIRU.K. BASKARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.1032/2011
(Against the order passed in C.C.No.414/2009, dated 28.10.2010 on the file of the District Forum, Coimbatore)
WEDNESDAY, THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY 2018.
1. The Manager,
M/s. Citi Bank Cards,
Post Box 5265,
Anna Salai Post Office,
Chennai – 600 002. Appellant/1st Opposite Party
Vs
1. Mr.C.N. Gopal,
S/o. Mr. Nachiappa Konar,
Power Best Electricals (P) Ltd.,
60-63, Bharathy Road,
Ram Nagar,
Coimbatore. Respondent-1/Complainant
2. Mr.S. Prasad,
Officer,
C/o. Customer Care,
M/s. Citi Bank Cards,
Post Box 5265,
Anna Salai Post Office,
Chennai – 600 002.
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office – 712500,
II Floor, Mount Casa Blanca Building,
260 – Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 006. Respondents 2 & 3/Opposite Parties 2 & 3
For Appellant/1st opposite party : M/s. V. Adhi Varahan, Advocate.
For 1st Respondent/complainant : M/s. Sai Bharath, Ilan, Advocates.
For Respondents 2 & 3/Opposite parties 2 & 3: Called absent
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 22.01.2018 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:
ORDER
THIRU.K. BASKARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/1st opposite party under section 15 read with section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Coimbatore passed in C.C.No.414/2009 dated 28.10.2010, allowing the complaint
1. The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is as follows;-
The 1st respondent/complainant herein had filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the annual premium in respect of the Health Insurance Policy and for costs, on the allegations inter alia, that the complainant was a holder of Diners Club Card issued by the appellant/1st opposite party with card No.3670 620622 8025 from the year 1994 and the same was valid till the year 2009; that the complainant was issued another credit card by name Citi Master Card Platinum Card with No.5520 9390 0390 0007; that the 3rd opposite party insurance company issued a medi-claim policy under the name and style of “Good Health Policy“ to the Diners Card Members and the complainant was also issued with such a policy; that the 1st opposite party had by its letter dated 26.05.2009 informed the complainant that the “ Good Health Policy” would be automatically renewed for the same sum assured like the previous years and hence the complainant bonafide believed that his insurance policy would be automatically renewed at the instance of the 1st opposite party. But, no such renewed policy was received by the complainant. Hence, the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite parties to verify the status of the renewal of the policy but they had sent a belated reply on 08.08.2009 stating that the Diners Club Card was blocked due to non-payment of the amount due under the “Citi Master Card “; that if really the Diners Club Card was blocked due to non-payment of dues under the other credit card then the opposite parties should have informed the same to the complainant that due to the said reason the Diners Club Card would be blocked and had it been done the complainant could have renewed the insurance policy directly with the 3rd opposite party; that Diners Club Card and the Citi Master Card Platinum Card are two different and distinct cards and that the complainant did not receive any statement of account regarding the alleged outstanding; that because of the deficiency of service exhibited by the opposite parties, the Good Health Policy could not be renewed and it stood lapsed and it would be very difficult for the complainant at his age being more than 70 years to take out a fresh medical insurance policy which resulted in mental agony and hardship to the complainant.
2. The claim of the complainant was resisted by the 1st opposite party on the ground that both the cards are linked and the banker has lien and as the complainant had committed default in payment of outstanding amounts due to the use of “ Citi Master Card Platinum Card “ , the banker had every right to close the Master Card and the Diners Club Card and accordingly, as there was outstanding amount unpaid for months together, the 1st opposite party had blocked the Diners Club Card as well as “Citi Master Card” issued to the complainant and as the cards were blocked the Good Health Insurance Policy premium was not renewed by the 1st opposite party and hence the insurance policy stood lapsed for which the 1st opposite party was not responsible.
3. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned District Forum had framed two points for consideration namely
(1) Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation?
During the enquiry before the learned District Forum, the complainant filed his proof affidavit and marked Exhibits A1 to A14 and proof affidavit of the 1st opposite party was also filed and Exhibit B1 was marked on the side of the 1st opposite party. No evidence was let in by the opposite parties 2 and 3.
4. Based on the pleadings and evidence adduced by both parties, the learned District Forum had recorded the findings that the opposite parties 1 and 2 had committed deficiency in service and directed them to pay the insurance premium amount without any break, in addition to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and a sum of Rs.3000/- as costs. The aggrieved 1st opposite party is now before us by way of this appeal.
5. The point for consideration is whether the order of the learned District Forum dated 28.10.2010 passed in C.C.No.414/2009 has to be set aside?
6. The following facts are not in dispute;-
(a) That the complainant was issued Citi Bank Master Card Platinum Card with card No.5520 9390 0390 0007 in the year 1994 by the 1st opposite party.
(b) Another card called Diners Club Card was also issued to the complainant by the 1st opposite party with No.3670 620622 8025.
(c) The 3rd opposite party, the New India Assurance Company Ltd., had issued medi-claim policy under the name and style of “Good Health Policy” to all the Diners Club Members and the complainant was also issued one such medi-claim policy.
(d) The 1st opposite party had sent a letter under Exhibit A3 dated 26.05.2009 to the complainant in which the complainant was informed that the “Good Health Policy” would be automatically renewed and the premium paid towards the policy would be automatically debited to his card account.
(e) But, the “Good Health Policy” under the 3rd opposite party taken by the complainant was not renewed for the year 2009-2010 and the same lapsed.
7. The simple grievance of the complainant is that the 1st opposite party had promised that the “Good Health Policy” issued by the 3rd opposite party in the name of the complainant would be automatically renewed at the instance of the 1st opposite party by paying the premium amount and by debiting the same amount in the Diners Club Card account of the complainant and hence the complainant had bonfide believed that this “Goods Health Policy” would have been automatically renewed by the 1st opposite party. But, the same did not happen and the policy stood lapsed due to non-payment of annual premium amount as promised by the 1st opposite party.
8. Per contra, the simple defence of the 1st opposite party is that it is not an unconditional promise or assurance on the part of the 1st opposite party in the matter of automatic renewal of the “Good Health Policy” held by the complainant. On the other hand, it had a rider that there should not be any outstanding due in any of the credit card account of the complainant with the 1st opposite party bank and that the available credit card limit in the particular credit card should be sufficient to honour the payment of the policy amount. But, in the case of the complainant, the complainant had committed default in payment of card usage amount under the Citi Bank Master Card Platinum Card and hence as per the Card Member Agreement between the banker and the complainant, the Citi Bank Master Card Platinum Card was closed during May 2009 and secondly the Diners Club Card account was also closed and as a result of which the annual premium for the “Good Health Policy” could not be paid by the 1st opposite party and hence the policy lapsed and therefore the 1st opposite party was not at all responsible for this and in fact the complainant had to blame himself for having not paid the outstanding dues under the Citi Bank Master Card Platinum Card.
9. From the above, it clearly emerges that the clear and categorical defence of the bank is that it has every right to block any credit card account due to non-payment of usage charge. But, unfortunately, the 1st opposite party had failed to file the so-called Card Member Agreement before the learned District Forum. A perusal of the order passed by the learned District Forum (Para-15) would make it clear that the learned District Forum had specifically pointed out the failure on the part of the 1st opposite party to produce the so-called Card Member Agreement under which the 1st opposite party bank derived the so-called right to block the account for non-payment of outstanding dues consecutively for three months. Further, this is one of the major reasons for partly allowing the complainant’s case. In spite of this, the appellant/1st opposite party for the reason best known to him, has not chosen to file the Card Member Agreement even before this appellate Forum for the purpose of perusing and deciding the case as to whether the 1st opposite party had such a right. Hence, we are left with no other option except to concur with the findings of the learned District Forum to the effect that the 1st opposite party had miserably failed to prove his case by producing the Card Member Agreement that he had every right to block both the credit card accounts of the complainant in the event of default committed by the complainant in paying the monthly usage charges consecutively for three months. Hence, we hold that the appellant has miserably failed to prove that it has the right to block the Diner Club Card account of the complainant on the ground of the complainant’s alleged failure to pay the usage charge amounts availed by the complainant during the month of January 2009 in respect of his Citi Bank Master Card Platinum Card.
10. The learned District Forum had also recorded another finding in respect of the letter under Ex A3 dated 26.05.2009 sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant as follows in para 10 and 11 in its orders;-
“Bank has appreciated the complainant for his continued usage and business of the Citi Bank Card namely Diners Club Card. It also reveals that the complainant was enjoying the excellent benefits from the “Good Health Policy” issued under the scheme covered by the above Diner Club Card. In the above letter, the bank has categorically stated that the above Good Health Mediclaim Policy would be automatically renewed and the premium due towards the policy will be automatically debited to the above card account by them in order to save the time and effort of the complainant. It is therefore, evident that as a gesture to their customer they have undertaken the duty of automatically renewing the above mediclaim policy and debit the premium payable to the insurer in this regard. Hence they are duty bound to renew the above policy on behalf of the complainant automatically and ought to have automatically debited the premium so paid in his Diners Club Card account.
It is not the case of the Bank that there was no sufficient amount to the credit of the complainant in the above card account of the complainant. Therefore, the claim of the complainant that Bank ought to have automatically renewed the above mediclaim policy debited the premium so paid to the insurer from his Diners Club Card account and kept the mediclaim policy alive has to be accepted. Admittedly, they have not done so depriving the mediclaim coverage for the complainant under the above policy, who is a senior citizen for whom no insurer would come forward to provide mediclaim insurance coverage in view of his age hereafter.
This cannot be assailed by the appellant/1st opposite party for the following reasons;-
a) Under Ex A3 letter dated 26.05.2009, the 1st opposite party/appellant had promised the complainant that his mediclaim insurance policy would be automatically renewed so as to avoid any efforts being taken by the complainant and that the premium amount so paid for this purpose of renewal would be debited in the complainant’s Citi Bank Master Card Platinum Card account. If at all, there was any outstanding in this credit card account it would have bearing in the matter of automatic renewal of Good Health Policy then the factum of such outstanding dues should necessarily have been intimated to the complainant so as to make him alert either to clear the outstanding or to take steps to renew the policy directly with the insurer. But, Ex A3 letter is silent regarding this meaning thereby as on 26.05.2009 there was no impediment for the automatic renewal, except one rider that in the said Citi Credit Card account sufficient credit limit should be available.
b) A perusal of documents filed by the complainant such as Exhibits A3, A4, A5 and B1 series would show that during the month of May 2009, the available credit card limit in the account was hovering between Rs.28,697.47 and Rs.27,672.41. From the entire materials available on record in this case, we cannot ascertain the premium amount payable for the “Good Health Policy” during the year 2009. In any event, it could not have exceeded Rs.25,000/- per month meaning thereby there was sufficient credit limit available in the Citi Bank Master Card Platinum Card of the complainant during the relevant point of time and hence the only rider namely availability of sufficient credit limit was satisfied in the complainant’s case.
c) As per the appellant’s defence, the bank has right to block the credit card account if there was any outstanding for more than three months or there was default in payment of monthly usage charges for consecutively three months. A perusal of Ex B1 series would reveal that the monthly usage amount availed by the complainant for the month of January 2009 stood unpaid till August 2009. If so, even during the month of April 2009, the appellant bank should have and ought to have blocked the Citi Bank Master Card Platinum Card account of the complainant and consequently, the Diners Club Card account of the complainant as well. But from Ex A3 letter dated 26.05.2009, we can easily deduce that up to 26.05.2009 these two card accounts were not blocked if so, one cannot understand the reason for blocking the credit card account of the complainant on the very next day of Ex A3 i.e., on 27.05.2009 that too after having promised automatic renewal of the insurance policy, through Ex A3 letter dated 26.05.2009. The appellant bank should be knowing on the date of Ex A3 letter dated 26.05.2009 that the complainant had committed default in payment of monthly usage amount availed using the Citi Bank Master Platinum Card for three months starting from January 2009 to March 2009 and if so why did not the appellant bank state the default committed by the complainant in respect of the said card so as to alert him to pay the outstanding to avail the automatic renewal. The omission on the part of the appellant/bank gave room for the complainant and in fact it would give room for any prudent man to believe that his Good Health Policy would be automatically renewed at the instance of the appellant bank. Hence, it is a clear case of promissory estoppel.
d) The appellant bank itself is not certain as to whether the complainant’s credit card was blocked or closed and as to when was the Citi Bank Master Card Platinum Card of the complainant was blocked; because in the written version filed by the 1st opposite party, in para 8, it is stated that the complainant’s account was not closed as averred in the complaint but it was only blocked by the opposite parties for non-payment of the dues by the complainant towards the usage of the said card. Closing the card account would mean closing the card after receiving the entire outstanding dues from the customer and blocking the card would mean blocking the account on default committed by the customer in paying the dues towards his usage under the card above. Hence, the complainant’s credit account was not closed and on the other hand it was only blocked. But, the very same appellant bank in its letter under Ex A9 and A10 had categorically and unambiguously stated that the complainant’s card with No.5520 9390 0390 0007 was closed with effect from 27.05.2009. Regarding the date of such closure or blocking of the account also there is inconsistency in the stand taken by the appellant bank. In these two letters, the appellant bank had stated that the complainant’s Citi Bank Master Card Platinum Card was closed with effect from 27.05.2009. But, in the written version in para 8, it is pleaded that the Diner Club Card was blocked due to non-payment of usage charge even before 27.05.2009. Hence, there is something fishy in the matter of alleged blocking of the credit card account of the complainant.
e) It is pertinent to note that even prior to Exhibit A3 letter the appellant bank had sent Ex A2 letter dated 21.04.2009 to the complainant by and through which the complainant was informed that the credit limit of the complainant’s Master Card was reduced from Rs.86,000/- to Rs.40,000/- with effect from 24.04.2009. If at all, there was any default committed by the complainant giving rise to the appellant bank to block the account we cannot understand as to why the appellant bank had thought it fit to continue or extend the credit card facility to the appellant till 26.05.2009 and abruptly blocking it at or about the date of renewing the “Good Health Policy”.
11. Hence, in the light of the discussion held above, we hold that the appellant had miserably failed to prove that as per Card Member Agreement, it had the right to block the Credit Card Account of the complainant, by producing the said agreement. We further hold that the appellant bank had by its conduct through Ex A3 letter made a promise to the complainant that his Health Insurance Policy would automatically be renewed if there was sufficient credit limit available in his account and as there was sufficient credit limit available during the relevant point of time, the appellant bank is estopped from contending that it had no liability to renew the insurance policy. The learned District Forum had also recorded similar findings and we do not find any reason or ground to interfere with the said findings.
12. In the light of the discussion held above, we are of the considered view that the order of the learned District Forum cannot be set aside and this point is answered accordingly.
13. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore passed in C.C.No.414/2009 dated 28.10.2010, with cost of Rs.5000/- payable by the appellant/1st opposite party to the 1st respondent/ complainant in this appeal.
K. BASKARAN, S. TAMILVANAN,
JUDICIAL MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
