DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:203 of 2011] Date of Institution :10.05.2011 Date of Decision :08.02.2012 -------------------------------------------- Smt. Satnam Kaur wife of Sh. Surjit Singh resident of #1154, 2nd Floor, Universal Enclave, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh. ….Complainant. (VERSUS) [1] HDFC Bank Limited, SCO No.87, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. [2] HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai – 400020 through its Managing Director. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant. None for OP No.1 Sh. Maninder Singh, Advocate for Sh. P.M. Goyal, Advocate for OP No.2. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Smt. Satnam Kaur has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed:- i) To cancel the policy in question and withdraw the illegal demand of the premium and penalty; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation; 2. The case of the complainant is that she was having an account No.13071000092380 with H.D.F.C. Bank in Phase VII, Mohali. She wanted to shift her account from Mohali Branch to Sector 46 Branch of OP No.1 at Chandigarh because the Branch at Mohali was far away from her house. However, instead of shifting the said account, she opened a new account in the H.D.F.C Branch located at Sector 46-C, Chandigarh. Since then, she is operating the said account. It has further been pleaded that she was also having a credit card issued by H.D.F.C. Bank bearing No.4346781101580553. In the month of August 2010, she received letter dated 26.8.2010 (Annexure C-3) issued by OP No.1 Bank that a sum of Rs.8,841/- has been debited from her Credit Card Account as the said amount has been paid as premium for an insurance policy issued by OP No.2. According to the complainant, she immediately intimated the Bank that she has not purchased any policy from OP No.2, so, the amount has been wrongly debited from her Credit Card Account. However, the OP No.1 Bank did not take any action and issued credit card statement (Annexure C-7) demanding a sum of Rs.13,582.52 on account of premium amount along with late charges and penalties etc. According to the complainant, as she has not made any request for issuance of the said policy nor she filled in the proposal form, so issuance of policy in her name in these circumstances and debiting of amount from her Credit Card Account against the premium of the said policy amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OP No.1, it has been pleaded that the complainant never visited OP No.1 Bank for the issuance of the said policy. The said policy has been issued by OP No.2, which is totally a separate office, through its own agent or through telephone banking/credit card division etc. However, it has been admitted that the complainant is an account holder of OP No.1 Bank and the amount mentioned above has been debited from the account of the complainant. According to OP No.1, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. In the written statement filed by OP No.2 – Insurance Company, it is pleaded that the policy was extended to the complainant after a request was lodged by OP No.1 Bank on behalf of the complainant. It has further been pleaded that the prayer of the complainant for withdrawal of the said policy cannot be accepted as the said policy was extended from 23.08.2010 to 22.08.2011, which period has already elapsed. Furthermore, according to OP No.2, the complainant never requested for the cancellation of the said policy at any stage. According to OP No.2, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel for OP No.2 and have perused the record. 6. Annexure C-3 is the letter dated 26.08.2010 whereby the complainant was informed that a sum of Rs.8,841/- has been debited from her Credit Card Account No. 4346781101580553 towards ERGO Health Insurance Premium. Annexure C-4 is the Health Suraksha – Policy Schedule bearing Policy No.50354835. Annexure C-5 is the copy of the Credit Card. Annexures C-6 and C-7 are the statements of Credit Card Account of the complainant showing demanding a sum of Rs.8,841/- and Rs.13,582.52Ps being the premium charges along with other charges. Annexure C-8 is the letter dated 01.04.2011 issued by OP No.1 Bank intimating that the Credit Card facility has been suspended on account of non payment of the outstanding dues of Rs.13,582.52Ps. 7. The case of the complainant is specific that she never approached OP No.2 –Insurance Company for issuance of any policy nor she filled any proposal form. OPs have failed to place on record any proposal form filled by the complainant for issuance of the said policy. The said proposal form, if any, is supposed to be with OP No.2 and it was the duty of OP No.2 to place the same on record. As the said form has not been placed on record, so, it is presumed that the version of the complainant is correct as no such form was ever filled in by the complainant. Furthermore, it is the own admission of OP No.2 that the complainant never approached it for issuance of the said policy directly. According to OP No.2, it was approached for issuance of the said policy through OP No.1. However, OP No.1 has denied this fact in its reply and has categorically stated that the said policy was issued by OP No.2 through its own agent or through telephone banking/credit card division etc. and OP No.1 was never approached for this purpose. Thus, the policy was issued without any request by the complainant either directly or through OP No.1. Therefore, the amount has been wrongly debited from the Credit Card Account of the complainant and the demand of Rs.13,582.52Ps is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. 8. In view of the foregoing observations, we allow the present complaint and issue the following directions to the OPs: - (i) OP No.2 shall cancel the policy in question (Annexure C-4) issued to the complainant; (ii) OP No.1-H.D.F.C. Bank shall withdraw all the illegal demands raised against the complainant vide Annexures C-6, C-7 and C-8 and issue a fresh Visa Woman’s God Credit Card Statement against Card No.4346-7811-0158-0553 showing the ‘Opening Balance’ as Rs.59.03Ps as shown in Annexure C-6. (iii) to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by her; (iv) to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 9. This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.10.05.2011 till actual payment besides Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation as well complying with the rest of the order. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 8th February, 2012 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.203 of 2011 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 02.02.2012. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 08.02.2012 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
