Haryana

Karnal

106/2012

Gulab Verma S/o Punna Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

C.J. Wadhwa

31 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.106 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.:17.02.2012

                                                              Date of decision:31.01.2017

 

Gulab Verma son of Shri Punna Ram aged 56 years resident of house no.1999, Sector-4, HUDA, Karnal, Alternative Address: House no.885, Sector-12, HUDA, Panipat.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. ICICI Bank Ltd. 1^st floor, Lexington, Hiranandni Estate, Choudbunder Road, Thane, (West) Mumbai-400607, through its Manager Credit Card.

2. ICICI Bank Ltd. Sector-12, opposite Mini Secretariat HUDA, Karnal.

3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Sector-12, opposite Mini Secretariat, HUDA, Karnal.

                                                                        ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri C.J. Wadhwa for the complainant.

                    Shri Amit Gupta Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.

                    Shri A.K.Vohra Advocate for opposite party no.3.

 

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that the opposite party no.2 had provided him the credit facility since January, 2008 vide credit card no.5176538533071003. He had been using the said credit card since  then and paid the entire loan well in time. He was also having the dealing with the HDFC Bank. In September, 2009, he made up his mind to utilize the credit facilities of HDFC Bank for purchasing of a New ACTIVA Scooter and HDFC Bank initially expressed willingness to give the loan facility, but lateron conveyed unwillingness on the ground that he was defaulter in credit card of ICICI Bank for a sum of Rs.24,315.65 and ICICI Bank had displayed his name in the list of defaulters in Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. (CIBIL SITE). Then he enquired from opposite parties no.1 and 2, who told that on 9.6.2008 the amount of Rs.17,862/- was wrongly shown as due in his account, whereas he had already paid an amount of Rs.4000/-. After adjusting the amount of Rs.4000/-, he had deposited Rs.13,842/- through cheque dated 9.6.2008 and receipt no.5616175 dated 9.6.2008 was issued by ICICI Bank. Thereafter, he approached Branch Manager ICICI Bank Karnal on 1.10.2009 to enquire into the matter, but he referred him to Panipat Branch and then to Ambala City Branch for confirming status in CIBIL Site. The branch of Ambala city told him that he had purchased one health policy through the credit card facility and some amount was due in respect of the said policy. He told Ambala City Branch that he had never applied/purchased any health policy from opposite party no.3. Thereafter, he was told that his consent was obtained telephonically and policy was issued on 6.10.2009. The opposite parties further explained that the policy number was displayed on 10.10.2009 and the copy of the same was sent through courier Blue Dart on 14.10.2009. However, he had never received any such policy. The ICICI Bank had wrongly paid the EMI principal and interest regarding health policy to ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, without his permission. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment and his reputation in the market was adversely affected.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complaint is false, frivolous and concocted and has been filed just to harass and humiliate the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this forum.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant became defaulter in credit card facility given to him. No wrong entry was ever made in the statement of account of the complainant. He was given correct statement of account whenever asked and he even deposited the amount, vide receipt dated 9.6.2008. He had approached the opposite parties for advancing Health policy and same was done telephonically. The policy was sent through courier and the same was received by him, but he is intentionally hiding the same. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                The opposite party no.3 also filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is time barred and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.3.

                   On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant submitted proposal for getting ICICI Lombard Health Care Policy verbally /telephonically and his consent was recorded by the concerned officer of the insurance company in voice recording system. Accordingly, the opposite party no.3 issued the Health Care Policy no.4034/FPP/03435797/00/000 for the period 26.3.2008 to midnight of 25.3.2009(one year) and from 26.3.2009 to midnight of 25.3.2010(one year). Policy was issued and sent to the complainant at his correspondence address. Consent through voice recording system mode has been approved by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.3. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C14 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Meenu Sharma Ex.OP3/1, affidavit of Vinay Dixit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.OP3/2 to Ex.OP3/7 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                The complainant had availed the credit card facility of opposite parties no.1 and 2. There was dispute between him and opposite parties no.1 and 2 regarding the amount of Rs.4000/- deposited by him. As per his allegations he had deposited the balance amount of Rs.13,842/- after adjusting the said amount of Rs.4000/-. It has further alleged that in September, 2009, he approached HDFC Bank for loan for purchasing scooter, but HDFC Bank told him that he was defaulter of ICICI Bank regarding credit card facility and amount of Rs.24,315.65 was due towards him. On enquiry he came to know that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 had debited the EMI principal and interest regarding Health Care Insurance Policy which was never purchased by him. On the other hand, the opposite party no.3 has asserted that the consent of the complainant for Health Care Policy was obtained through voice recording system, which is approved by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority.

8.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that the opposite party no.3 has not produced any CD regarding the voice recording of the complainant for obtaining his consent for purchasing the policy. Even transcript of any such voice recording has not been produced. Only the documents Ex.OP3/2 to Ex.OP3/5 have been produced indicating that Health Care Policy was issued to the complainant and the premiums of the same were received for the financial years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Even Health Insurance card, the copy of which is Ex.OP3/6 was issued to the complainant. However, no document has been produced, which may show that any health care policy was ever dispatched to the complainant at his correspondence address. The copy of guidelines on Distance Marketing and Sale Process Verification of Insurance Products has been produced as Ex.O3/7. Even if, it is accepted that the consent of the complainant for the policy was obtained through voice recording system, then the question arises whether the guidelines as mentioned in Ex.O3/7 were followed.

9.                As per guidelines, the usage of distance mode is for limited purpose of lead generation and completion of subsequent portion of solicitation through a physical approach. However, neither it has been alleged nor there is any evidence to establish that the opposite party no.3 had physically approached the complainant for solicitation of the policy. A client is entitled to get a voice copy, if he so desired. When the complainant raised dispute regarding his consent for obtaining the policy, the copy of the voice recording must have been sent to him, but no such copy was ever sent. The insurer must collect signed written proposal in physical form from the clients, who purchase policy on Distance Marketing channel. The opposite party no.3 has led no evidence that the complainant had signed any written proposal for obtaining the policy. No such proposal form has been produced. Even no document has been produced to establish that the policy was sent to the complainant at his correspondence address. Thus, necessary guidelines for Distance Marketing and Sale Process Verification of Insurance Products were not followed by opposite party no.3 for issuing policy in the name of the complainant, which certainly amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.3.

10.              So far as the opposite parties no.1 and 2 are concerned they have debited the premium amount of the Health Care Policy issued by opposite party no.3 in favour of the complainant, in his credit card account. The details of the credit card amount and the security Pin must be only in the knowledge of the complainant and without disclosing the same by him to opposite party no.3, it could not be possible for the opposite party no.3 to claim the premium amount from his credit card account. Therefore, under such a situation, if the complainant disclosed his credit card account number and security Pin to opposite party no.3, then no fault can be attributed to opposite parties no.1 and 2 in debiting the premium amount in his credit card account after getting the details alongwith security Pin from opposite party no.3. Thus, opposite parties no.1 and 2 were legally justified to debit the amount of premium and interest in the credit card account of the complainant and as such entitled to recover the same. As the complainant had not deposited the due amount with opposite parties no.1 and 2, there was no illegality or deficiency in service on their part in putting his name in the list of defaulters and sending that list to CIBIL. Consequently, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2.

11.              In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the opposite party no.3 had not followed the guidelines on Distance Marketing and Sale Process Verification of Insurance Products for issuing the policy to the complainant before claiming the premium amount from his credit card account with opposite parties no.1 and 2, therefore, the complainant is entitled to recover the premium amount and interest obtained by opposite party no.3 from his credit card account with opposite parties no.1 and 2 regarding the disputed Health Care Policy.

11.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint partly and direct the opposite party no.3 to refund the amount of  premium and interest obtained from the credit card account and complainant with opposite parties no.1 and 2 regarding the disputed Health Care Policy alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite party no.3 to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 31.01.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                             (Anil Sharma)                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                                 Member