Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he had been maintaining Credit Card No.4196-0749-4703-4618 with the op no.1 and as and when complainant used to visit the op no.1’s office at Kolkata, they insisted the complainant for taking up a insurance policy from op no.2 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited with whom the op no.1 has a tie-up.

          After repeated insistences by op no.1 complainant agreed to take one insurance policy from op no.2 and policy was issued in the name of complainant on 23.12.2009 having policy No.CEE0019797000100 with an understanding with op no.1 that premium of the said policy would be debited from complainant’s credit card.

          Op no.1 raised monthly bill statement showing dues and complainant was in firm believe that the said payment is made against the said policy and partly against the personal loan amounting to Rs.64,000/-.  Accordingly the payment was made in EMIs from 03.04.2010 to 13.08.2010 by five installments- 1) Rs.12,000/-, 2) 14,325/-, 3) 16,621/-, 4) 6,295/- & 5) 21,600/- and despite such repayment of the aforesaid amount towards repayment of loan opno.1 again raised monthly statement showing different amount payable as EMI when complainant made enquiry and found that op no.1 in collusion with op no.2 has opened 16 different insurance policies in the name of the complainant and utilized those EMIs payment towards premium of the policies.

          But complainant has alleged that except insurance policy No.CEE00197970000100 dated 23.12.2009 complainant never purchased any such further 16 insurance policies and they never filed any such application forms for purchasing those insurance policies and fact remains the op nos. 1 & 2 with their connivance and for illegal monetary gain without taking any consent of the complainant made such act and issued 16 insurance policies.  But in fact complainant never received any other policy documents except the policy No.CEE00197970000100.  So in the circumstances, for the over act and unfair trade practice of op nos. 1 & 2 complainant has suffered much and in fact except the above noted insurance policy, no policy was purchased by the complainant with consent of the complainant and in the circumstances complainant has prayed for refund of the said amount which had been paid by the op no.1 to the op no.2 on different dates without consent of the complainant and complainant’s claim for return of Rs.1,80,424/- which was illegally debited to his credit card together with compensation for harassment and inconvenience caused to the complainant.  

          On the other hand op no.1 the Standard Chartered Bank by filing this written version has submitted that the allegation of the complainant is completely false and fabricated and the transactions were made as per telephonic consent of the complainant and complainant never denied the fact of his telephonic consent and also about payment against credit card account and so the allegation of unfair trade practice by the op no.1 is completely baseless and it is fabricated and further it is submitted that insurance policies were issued by the op no.2, so op no.2 is the authority to cancel the same.  But in the mean time some of the policies were found cancelled and further submitted that without the consent of the complainant the policy could not be opened.  So, in this regard op no.1 has no play in this regard but falsely some allegations are made by the complainant for which same should be dismissed.

          On the other hand op no.2 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. has submitted that they issued mediclaim and personal accident policies at the behest of the op no.1 upon getting remittance from the op no.1 for premium chargeable under the respective policies as per procedure stated in the said policy and it is further submitted that complainant had voluntarily taken such insurance policy and had given due consent while getting enrolled for those policies and op no.1 debited the premium amount with the due consent of the complainant and the said debit was done by the op no.1 partly from the complainant’s credit card and it has been represented to this op no.2 that all such debits the complainant gave his express consent and now complainant has mischievously stated otherwise and raised such false allegations and only to avoid credit card dues complainant has filed this mischievous complaint against the ops and moreover the complainant after lapse of two years from the date of the policies has filed this case and for which the present complaint is barred by limitation.

          Another factor is that there is no deficiency on the part of the op and for which the complainant’s present case should be dismissed.

                                                   Decision with reasons

          In the particular case, we have heard the argument of the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and on proper consideration of the argument of Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the allegation of the complainant in his complaint including the written version of the op nos. 1 & 2 it is found that op no.2 admitted in his written version in para-4 that op no.2 issued mediclaim and personal accident policy at the behest of the op no.1 by getting remittance from the op no.1 for premium charge in respect of policies as per policy procedure.  Then it is clear that no written application or application form was submitted by the complainant for purchasing such other 15 or 16 insurance policies and fact remains that op no.2 an insurance company has failed to produce any application for purchasing mediclaim policy one after another by the complainant but op no.2 has admitted that as per consent of the op no.1 and as per debiting the amount of premium one after another policies were opened by the op.  Now the question is how the op no.2 can open the policy without the specific prayer of the complainant in writing along with application form of purchase such policy.  But it is proved from the evidence of the op no.2 that practically op no.2 issued such policies as per consent of the op no.1 as op no.1 debited the amount.

          Similarly op no.1 has failed to produce the document to show that at any point of time complainant submitted any application before the op no.1 for remitting the said amount to op no.2 for purchasing policies.  At the same time op no.2 has also failed to produce any paper to show that complainant sent any such prayer to op no.2 with prayer along with application form for purchasing such policies with prayer for debiting such amount from his credit card.

          So, considering that fact, it is clear that complainant never applied for 15 mediclaim policies or accidental policies of the op either through op no.1 or direct to op no.2 and it is proved that complainant never prayed for purchasing such insurance policies one after another because op nos. 1 & 2 have failed to produce any such document.

          But on the other hand, after considering the copy of the policies, documents as produced by the op, it is found that all the policies were opened on voice record.  But it is to be mentioned that policy cannot be purchased on voice record because there is a standing rule of IRDA that every policy shall be issued on the basis of application form for purchasing such particular policy.  But op nos.1 & 2 have failed to produce any such application form filed by the complainant for purchasing the said policies from the op no.2 via op no.1.

          Then it is proved there was connivance in between the op nos. 1 & 2 and no doubt there was a tie up business in between them and for which for the benefit of their business they without the consent of the complainant and even without taking any fresh application form for purchasing such policies by the complainant opened policies by such noting that on voice record the policy was opened.

          But in this case it is palpably proved that both the op nos.1 & 2 adopted unfair trade practice and illegally opened such policies on voice record.  But it is the voice record of op no.1 not of the complainant.  Another factor is that op nos. 1 & 2 have failed to produce any paper in support of purchasing 15 or 16 insurance policies by the complainant.  But ops’ version is that everything is made on voice record, but from the ops’ version it is clear that voice record is of the op no.1 and op no.1 debited the said amount from the credit card amount of the complainant.

          Then it is clear that it is an unmerchantable practice that has been adopted by both the Bank and insurance company as they have their tie-up and it is a very dangerous method as adopted by some private banks and private insurance companies and in such a manner the credit cards are being misused by the private banks and the insurance companies and it is not the first case but in so many cases this practice has been adopted and the consumer are being deprived and deceived by the bank authority and for which the consumer has been suffering financially in all respect.  This is the common practice of the ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank, AXIS Bank and some other private banks and some private insurance companies like Bajaj Allianz, Reliance etc like this op.

          Moreover after studying the entire fact as alleged in the complaint if any reasonable and prudent man applies his commonsense in that case he shall also be astonished that a person purchases one after another insurance policies having no such capacity to pay premium yearly.

          On overall evaluation of the entire material fact particularly the version and evidence of the ops we are confirmed that op nos. 1 & 2 with connivance with each other caused the financial liability of the complainant and due to their understanding their and for increase business ops adopted such unfair trade practice and debited the amount in favour of the op no.2 by op no.1 using the credit card of the complainant without any consent, without any document of the complainant and that is proved beyond any manner of doubt for which we are convinced to hold that both ops are equally liable for opening such insurance policies in the name of the complainant by using the money of the complainant and without any document of purchasing such policies by the complainant and in the above situation both ops are equally liable for refund of the said amount without any fail with interest.  When malpractice has adopted by both the ops are proved beyond any manner of doubt and partly op no.2 has admitted that he opened the same as per the consent of the op no.1.  So, it is proved that they tied-up the business for causing harm to the credit card holders and in this regard we have gathered after collecting all the materials from the record that complainant never purchased those policies and he never gave any consent.

          In the result, the complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

                                                           ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- each against each op.

          Op nos. 1 & 2 are hereby directed jointly and severally to cancel all the policies which had been opened by op nos. 1 & 2 in the name of the complainant and refund the entire amount of Rs.1,80,425/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which for each day’s delay and for disobeyance of the Forum’s order each op shall have to pay punitive damages @ Rs.500/- per day till full satisfaction of the present decretal amount along with cost as already awarded as litigation cost in favour of the complainant against the ops.

          Ops are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- each for adopting unfair and unmerchantable practice to State Consumer Welfare Fund.

          Ops are directed to comply the order very strictly failing which further interest and penalty shall be imposed even penal proceeding shall be started u/s 27 of CP Act 1986 for which they shall be liable.