THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 475 of 2014
Date of Institution : 28.8.2014
Date of Decision : 25.08 2015
Hare Ram Singh son of Sh. Jai Parkash Singh C/o OCM India Limited, G.T.Road, Chheharta, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
HDFC Bank Ltd., Near Doaba Automobile, Court Road Branch, Amritsar through its Branch Manager/Incharge
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 101,102 and 103, 2nd Floor, Batra Building, Sector 17-D,Chandigarh through its Manager/Person Over All Incharge
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh.Deepak Bhandari,Advocate
For the opposite parties No.1 & 2 : Sh. R.K.SharmaAdvocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
-2-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Hare Ram Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that on 8.11.2012 he got opened one salary account with opposite party No.1 vide account No. 13591140006758. According to the complainant he never applied for issuance of any credit card. The complainant was issued one credit card bearing No. 4050285000765964. Later on, opposite party No.1 in collusion with opposite party No.2 got issued one health insurance policy from opposite party No.2 in June 2013 without consent and knowledge of the complainant. Complainant has alleged that he never filled in any proposal form nor opposite party No.2 has ever issued any Insurance policy nor the complainant received any insurance policy from opposite party No.2 and without any authority from the complainant and the premium of the said insurance policy has been deducted automatically by the opposite party No.2 from the credit card issued by opposite party No.1. When the complainant came to know about this fact, he immediately requested the opposite party No.1 to withdraw/close the said credit card which was accordingly closed/withdrawn on 5.2.2014 on the request of the complainant. The complainant also requested opposite party No.1 not to further deduct any amount from the account of the complainant towards any alleged insurance policy of opposite party No.2. But inspite of that the amount has been deducted from the account of the complainant regularly by opposite party No.2 in connivance with opposite party No.1. On 25.7.2014 complainant obtained account statement and came to know that the amount of premium of alleged insurance policy has been regularly deducted from the account of the complainant and it was also shown in the said account statement that another credit card bearing No. 4050285000796266 has been issued in the name of the complainant. Complainant has alleged that he never applied for such credit card nor ever received any such credit card nor ever used any such credit card at any point of time. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 in connivance with each other have created these documents just to extract money from the account of the complainant. Complainant again approached the opposite party No.1 to withdraw/close the said credit card, but opposite party has failed to pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the entire amount which was deducted from the account of the complainant towards premium of alleged insurance policy alongwith upto date interest and also to close the said credit card bearing No. 4050285000796266. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 in their joint written version has submitted that complainant was issued credit card No. 4050285000765964 on 10.6.2013 on the basis of card application form filled in and signed by the complainant by opposite party No.1. However, the aforesaid credit card was blocked/stopped on the basis of request of the complainant on 5.2.2014 and another card account No. 4050285000796266 was generated . However, the physical plastic card was not despatched to the complainant due to non receipt of letter from the complainant for card issuance. It was submitted that at the time of submission of credit card application form, the complainant has annexed the copy of his identity documents and at that time he was made clear about all the terms and conditions governing the usage of the credit cards. It was further submitted that for the purpose of convenience and better understanding the charges referred to in the card Member Agreement were extracted and notified separately to the complainant under the head “Most Important Terms and Conditions” This document contains complete information on “Fees & Charges”, “Cash Advance Fee”, “Late fee charges”, “Finance Charges” etc. The said document was sent to the complainant alongwith credit card. Hence, the complainant was completely aware of the charges applicable to him when he was issued the credit card. The complainant has opted for issuance of health insurance policy of card No. 4050285000765964. the complainant had taken Health Suraksha Policy (Silver Plan) bearing policy No.51593450-01 in his name. The said policy was issued on 9.7.2013 by opposite party No.2. This policy was issued after seeking verbal confirmation and approval from the complainant by the officials of opposite party No.2 and the said policy was issued at Mumbai. It was told to the complainant orally that the total premium for full one year during the insurance policy was Rs. 8487/- and the processing fee and service tax etc., are chargeable extra on monthly basis with monthly premium. It was submitted that after understanding all these details, the complainant has given consent to process the policy and the premium of the said policy were converted into DIAL AN EMI Loans against the credit card Limited vide Loan No. 8350179 dated 10.7.2013. The loan was payable in 12 EMIs of Rs. 707.25/- respectively. The said DAE loans were observed in credit card statement dated 20.7.2013. Due to non payment of credit card outstanding dues, opposite party No.1 bank has hold funds and placed the banker's lien on complainant's saving account on 28.7.2014. The credit card outstanding dues amount of Rs. 9816.40 paise was sett off on 12.8.2014 from the aforesaid saving account of the complainant and transferred to credit card account against credit card outstanding dues. While submitting that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and while denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, account statement Ex.C-1.
4. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Surjit Singh,Branch Manager Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP1,2/25.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant has saving bank account/salary account with the opposite party bank vide account No. 13591140006758. The complainant was issued one credit card bearing No. 4050285000765964. The complainant submitted that he never applied for any Insurance policy from opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 in connivance with opposite party No.2 got issued one health insurance policy from opposite party No.2 in June 2013 without consent and knowledge of the complainant. The complainant never filled in any proposal form nor opposite party No.2 has ever issued any Insurance policy nor the complainant received any insurance policy from opposite party No.2 and without any authority from the complainant, the premium of the said insurance policy has been deducted by the opposite party No.2 from the credit card issued by opposite party No.1., When the complainant came to know about this fact, he immediately requested the opposite party No.1 to withdraw/close the said credit card which was accordingly closed/withdrawn on 5.2.2014 on the request of the complainant. The complainant also requested opposite party No.1 not to further deduct any amount from the account of the complainant towards any alleged insurance policy of opposite party No.2. But inspite of that the amount has been deducted from the account of the complainant regularly by opposite party No.2 in connivance with opposite party No.1. The complainant obtained statement of account from opposite party No.1 on 25.7.2014 and came to know that the amount of premium of alleged insurance policy has been regularly deducted from the account of the complainant and it was also shown in the said account statement Ex.C-1 that another credit card bearing No. 4050285000796266 has been issued in the name of the complainant. The complainant never applied for such credit card nor ever received any such credit card nor ever used any such credit card at any point of time. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 in connivance with each other have created these documents just to extract money from the account of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 qua the complainant.
7. Whereas case of opposite parties No.1 & 2 as per their joint written version is that complainant had aforesaid account with opposite party No.1 bank. The complainant was issued credit card on 10.6.2013 on the basis of card application form filled in and signed by the complainant Ex.OP1,2/2, by opposite party No.1. However, the aforesaid credit card was blocked/stopped on the basis of request of the complainant on 5.2.2014. Thereafter another card account No. 4050285000796266 was generated . However, the physical plastic card was not despatched to the complainant due to non receipt of letter from the complainant for card issuance. The complainant has opted for issuance of health insurance policy of card No. 4050285000765964. the complainant had taken Health Suraksha Policy (Silver Plan) bearing policy No.51593450-01 in his name. The said policy was issued on 9.7.2013 by opposite party No.2. This policy was issued after seeking verbal confirmation and approval from the complainant by the officials of opposite party No.2 and the said policy was issued at Mumbai. It was told to the complainant orally that the total premium for full one year during the insurance policy was Rs. 8487/- and the processing fee and service tax etc., are chargeable extra on monthly basis with monthly premium. Understanding all these details, the complainant has given consent to process the policy and the premium of the said policy were converted into DIAL AN EMI Loans against the credit card Limited vide Loan No. 8350179 dated 10.7.2013. The loan was payable in 12 EMIs of Rs. 707.25/- respectively. The said DAE loans were observed in credit card statement dated 20.7.2013 Ex.OP1,2/7. Due to non payment of credit card outstanding dues, opposite party No.1 bank has hold funds and placed the banker's lien on complainant's saving account on 28.7.2014. The credit card outstanding dues amount of Rs. 9816.40 paise was sett off on 12.8.2014 from the aforesaid saving account of the complainant and transferred to credit card account against credit card outstanding dues. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that in these circumstances, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant has his saving bank account bearing No. 13591140006758. The complainant was issued credit card bearing No. 4050285000765964 on his written request i.e. application form of the complainant Ex.OP1,2/2. Opposite party No.2 issued some Insurance policy in the name of complainant i.e. Health Suraksha Policy (Silver Plan), as alleged by the opposite parties bearing policy No.51593450-01 in the name of the complainant on 9.7.2013. The complainant was never informed of such policy. Opposite party No.1 in connivance with opposite party No.2 without the consent of the complainant without getting any proposal form or application form from the complainant without getting the detail particulars/biodata of the complainant without getting medical check up, without checking previous history of the complainant regarding his health status, issued the said policy. Opposite parties have alleged that they have sought verbal confirmation and approval from the complainant . But no evidence has been produced by the opposite parties regarding any verbal confirmation and approval of the complainant regarding issuance of such insurance policy. No insurance policy could be issued without any proposal or application form, from the complainant or from the employer of the complainant , in case of group insurance. But here in this case no document has been produced by the opposite parties to prove that the complainant has ever opted for any insurance policy what to speak of health suraksha policy, as alleged by the opposite parties nor the opposite parties have issued any such insurance policy to the complainant nor the opposite parties could produce any evidence as to when the said insurance policy was despatched to the complainant and whether such insurance policy was ever received by the complainant nor the opposite parties could produce the said policy or any of its document on the record of this fora. All this shows that opposite parties No.1 & 2 in connivance with each other , have created this story . Not only this opposite parties converted the premium of the afroesaid policy into DIAL AN EMI loans against the credit card facility vide loan No. 8350179 on 10.7.2013. The loan was payable in 12 EMIs of Rs.707.25/- respectively and the said DAE loans were observed in the credit card account of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 of its own issued loan facility to the complainant without getting any consent or approval from the complainant. No such application of the complainant regarding request for any loan facility has been produced by opposite party No.1 nor any consent of the complainant has been produced by opposite party No.1 regarding the loan facility nor the complainant has ever converted the premium of the aforesaid insurance policy with the said loan against the credit card facility. The opposite parties could not produce any document i.e. application form, declaration regarding the insurance policy. Opposite parties have also failed to produce on record any application from the complainant regarding loan facility or any request from the complainant to convert the premium of the said policy into the loan account against the credit card facility.
9. Not only this it is the admitted case of the opposite parties that the complainant stopped/blocked his credit card facility on 5.2.2014. Resultantly opposite party No.1 stopped/cancelled the credit card facility of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 has further alleged that another card No. 4050285000796266 was generated in the name of the complainant. However physical plastic card of this account was not dispatched to the complainant because of non receipt of letter from the complainant for card issuance. The opposite parties could not produce any document or any request from the complainant to generate another credit card account of the complainant nor the opposite party No.1 issued any credit card to the complainant because no such request has been received from the complainant. All this shows that opposite party No.1 without the consent, without any application from the complainant, without any approval from the complainant has generated another credit card account in the name of the complainant and thereafter continued deducting premium of the aforesaid insurance policy in the name of the complainant from that credit card account of the complainant without his consent. All this shows that opposite parties No.1 & 2 in connivance with each other deprived the complainant from his hard earned money without his consent request or even application form. Even the complainant stopped and got cancelled his credit card facility , as admitted by opposite party No.1 in their written version on 5.2.2014 ; thereby the complainant has stopped/blocked his credit card facility from opposite party No.1 on 5.2.2014 . Even thereafter without the consent of the complainant, without any request from the complainant, the opposite party No.1 generated another credit card account No. 4050285000796266 and continued deducting the premium of the aforesaid policy from that credit card account of the complainant. All this shows that opposite parties not only guilty of deficiency of service towards the complainant but has also indulged in unfair trade practice just to deprive the complainant from his hard earned money.
10. Resultantly we allow the complaint of the complainant with costs and the opposite parties are directed to refund the entire amount which was deducted from the account of the complainant towards the premiums of the aforesaid insurance policy No.51593450-01 dated 9.7.2013 issued by opposite party No.2. Opposite parties are also directed to stop the credit card facility of the complainant immediately. Opposite parties are also directed to stop deducting any amount of premium towards alleged aforesaid insurance policy of the complainant. Opposite parties in connivance with each other have indulged in unfair trade practice thereby complainant has been deprived of his hard earned money, as such opposite parties are directed to pay compensation Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
25.8.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
