DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.370 of 06-09-2013
Decided on 19-02-2014
Prem Kumar aged about 55 years S/o Hari Ram C/o Hari Ram Prem Kumar Oil Mills, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.HDFC Bank Ltd. Grain Market Branch, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.
2.HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., Corporate Office: 6th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri-Kula Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai, through its General Manager.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Rohit Romana, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Vinod Garg, counsel for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Varun Gupta, counsel for the opposite party No.2.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having account No.50200000957231 with the opposite party No.1. The complainant received a credit card from the opposite party No.1 though he neither made any written request nor sent any message to the opposite party No.1 to issue him the said credit card as he has no need for the same. The opposite party No.1 issued the said credit card to the complainant of its own to show the certain credits against him and to deduct the certain amounts from his account from time to time on the pretext that he is holding the credit card. The complainant returned the abovesaid credit card to the opposite party No.1 without using the same. Later on the complainant received a Personal Insurance policy from the opposite party No.2 valid for the period from 4.7.2013 to 3.7.2014, in the covering letter the opposite party No.2 alleged that 'Health Suraksha Policy' for hospitalization No.51591083 for Rs.3 lacs and premium for which has been described as Rs.9916/- and further alleged 'Sarv Suraksha Advantage Personal Accident' policy No.51591084 with sum assured of Rs.10 lacs and premium for which has been described as Rs.787/-. The opposite party No.2 is a sister concern of the opposite party No.1. The complainant never approached either of the opposite parties or submitted any application or proposal form with them for issuing him the policy. The opposite party No.2 issued a health card to the complainant. The opposite party No.1 has paid the amount of Rs.10,703/- from his credit card to the opposite party No.2 of its own, but at the time of making the payment by the opposite party No.1, the said credit card was lying with the complainant and he has not used the same for making the alleged premium amount to the opposite party No.2. The complainant has received a SMS on his mobile number that 'Hassel Free Personal Accident Insurance, Covers Death PTD, TTD, Upto 69 years 0% EMI on UR HDFC Credit Card, SMS HDFC Health to 5676712 T & C'. Thus the opposite party No.1 issued the credit card in question without any written application against the account of the complainant and the opposite party No.2 issued him the insurance policy without receiving any application or proposal form from him, as such the credit card and policy are liable to be cancelled from the date of its issuance. The complainant is not liable to pay any amount to the opposite parties either against the credit card or against the insurance policy and the opposite party No.1 is not entitled to deduct any such amount from his account maintained with it. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to cancel the credit card and insurance policy without deducting any amount from his account alongwith cost and compensation.
2. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant has purchased the insurance policy from the opposite party No.2 of his own by using the credit card of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 recorded the voice/conversation of the complainant for the sale of the insurance policy and the said conversation in the form of CD is recorded. On the request of the complainant, the opposite party No.2 has cancelled his insurance policy and credited the policy premium amount in his account with full policy premium reversal amount of Rs.10,703/- on dated 4.7.2013, which was otherwise payable in the form of EMIs. As such the complaint is infructuous and liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. The opposite party No.1 further pleaded that the complainant has concealed the fact that he himself obtained the credit card by submitting duly filled application form with the opposite party No.1, it issued him EMV Master Card Platinum credit card bearing No.5520880001601348 and later on upgraded the same to Master Card Platinum credit card bearing No.5520880001725642.
3. The opposite party No.2 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant has purchased its insurance policy by using his credit card issued by the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 recorded the voice/conversation of the complainant for the sale of the insurance policy. On the request of the complainant, the opposite party No.2 has cancelled his insurance policy and credited his account with full amount of Rs.10,703/-, which was otherwise payable in the form of EMIs. As such the complaint is infructuous and is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. The voice recording system is permissible in law as per the rules of IRDA. The opposite party No.2 sent a welcome message in the mobile number of the complainant.
4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. The submission of the complainant is that the opposite party No.1 issued him a credit card, whereas he has never applied for the same. As the complainant had no need for the credit card, he returned the same to the opposite party No.1 without using it. Later on the complainant received a Personal Insurance policy from the opposite party No.2 valid for the period from 4.7.2013 to 3.7.2014, in the covering letter the opposite party No.2 has mentioned that 'Health Suraksha Policy' for hospitalization No.51592083 for Rs.3 lacs and premium for which has been described as Rs.9916/- and further alleged 'Sarv Suraksha Advantage Personal Accident' policy No.51591084 for the sum assured of Rs.10 lacs and premium was described as Rs.787/-. The complainant has neither requested the opposite parties to issue him the insurance policy nor has given any application or proposal form in this regard. The opposite party No.1 has paid the premium amount of Rs.10,703/- from the credit card of the complainant to the opposite party No.2 of its own.
7. On the other hand the submission of the opposite party No.1 is that the complainant has concealed the true facts from this Forum regarding obtaining of the credit card as he himself obtained the same vide application, Ex.OP1/1. The complainant has purchased the insurance policy from the opposite party No.2 of his own by using its credit card of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 recorded the voice/conversation of the complainant for the sale of the insurance policy and the said conversation in the form of CD is recorded. On the request of the complainant, the opposite party No.2 has cancelled the insurance policy and credited his account with full amount of Rs.10,703/- on dated 4.7.2013, which was otherwise payable in the form of EMIs. The voice recording system is permissible in law as per the rules of IRDA.
8. The submission of the opposite party No.2 is that the complainant has purchased its insurance policy of his own by using the credit card issued by the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 recorded the voice/conversation of the complainant for the sale of the insurance policy, which is permissible in law as per the rules of IRDA. On the request of the complainant, the opposite party No.2 cancelled his insurance policy and credited his account with full amount of Rs.10,703/-, which was otherwise payable in the form of EMIs.
9. Regarding the first contention of the complainant that he has never applied for the credit card, the opposite party No.1 has placed on file Credit Card Brochure-Cum-Application Form, Ex.OP1/1, which is duly filled and signed by the complainant and as per this document he has opted for the 'Direct Debit Option', wherein he stated that 'I accept the direct debit facility and authorize HDFC Bank to debit my Bank account, aforementioned in the Bank Details section, towards credit card payments as indicated below 100% billed amount. Minimum amount due (5% of total statement outstanding including EMI, or Rs.200/- whichever is higher)', the complainant has duly signed this direct debit option and declaration on dated 29.5.2013, which falsifies his version that he has never applied for the credit card. Besides this the complainant has also signed the declaration of the 'Most Important Document' to the effect that 'I Mr./Mrs.Prem Kumar, verify and agreed that I have applied for the below Credit Card' and tick the 'Platinum Plus' and has duly signed 'MITC'. The policy has been issued to the complainant as he has requested the opposite party No.2 for the same and his voice was duly recorded in the CD, this again falsifies the version of the complainant that he has never requested for the issuance of the insurance policy. The opposite party No.2 has already credited the amount of Rs.10,703/- in the account of the complainant
10. Thus from the above facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file we are of the considered view that the complainant has concealed the material facts that he has applied for the credit card through the Credit Card Brochure-Cum-Application Form, Ex.OP1/1 that is duly signed by him and his recorded conversation shows that he has requested to issue the insurance policy to the opposite party No.2 and on his request the amount of Rs.10,703/- credited in his insurance policy while using his credit card. On his request to refund the premium amount, the amount of Rs.10,703/- has been refunded to him, thus this is a concealment of facts on the part of the complainant. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled V.P Kappor and others. Vs. Raj Chopra and others, 1999(1) CLT 436, wherein it has been held:-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2 and 14-Complaint-Suppression of facts-Held that a party which suppresses facts from the Court does not deserve to get any relief.”
11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
19-02-2014
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
(Jarnail Singh)
Member
