Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/71/2013

Muthurevula Subramani S/o. Late M.Krishnaiah , - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd., rep by its Managing Director, - Opp.Party(s)

B.Sekhar Reddy

11 Mar 2015

ORDER

                                                                            Date of filing     : 23.09.2013

                                                                            Date of Disposal: 11.03.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, TIRUPATI.

PRESENT: Sri.M. Ramakrishnaiah, President

    Smt.T. Anitha, Member

                                  

MONDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

C.C.No.71/2013

 

Between

 

Muthurevula Subramani

S/o. Late M. Krishnaiah

Flat No. 502, Royal Nagar

Mourya Mansion Apartments

Tirupathi – 517501,

Chittoor Dist., Andhra Pradesh.

                                                                                            ...Complainant.

And

 

1. M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd., Represented by

its Managing Director

LB Nagar, Tiruvanmiyur

Chennai – 600041.

 

2. M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd., Represented by

its Branch Manager

No. 110, Nelsonmanikam Road

CEEBROS Building, Aminjakarai

Chennai – 600029.

 

3. M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd., Represented by

its Branch Manager

1^st Floor, Krishna Complex

AIR Bye pass Road

Tirupati – 517501.

 

4. HDFC General Insurance Company Limited

Represented by its Managing Director

6^th Floor, Leela Business Park

Andheri, Kurla Road, Andheri East

Mumbai – 400059.

 

5. HDFC ERGO GIC Ltd., Represented by

its Branch Manager

6^th Floor, MBC Towers

Old No. 90, New No. 199

Luz Church Road, Mylapore

Chennai – 600004.

 

6. Mr. Ramesh., Conciliator,

Office of the Branch Manager

HDFC Bank, 1^st Floor, Krishna Complex

AIR Bye pass Road, Tirupati – 517501.

                                                                  

                                                                                                …Opposite parties.

 

          This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 24.02.15 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.P.Munni Reddy, B. Sekhar Reddy counsel for the complainant and Sri.T.Gopi Chand, counsel for the Op No, 2&6, S.M.Jhan, counsel for the Op No.4 and Opposite Party No.1, 3, &5 remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

                                                           ORDER

                              DELIVERED BY T.ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

         

           This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986

Complaining deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties for debiting the amount towards premium from the account of the complainant for renewal of the policy without proper authorization of the complainant.

           2.  The brief facts of the case are:-  The complainant holds a bank account bearing No. 021410000101727 and also he had credit card bearing No. 461786300682126.  In the year 2010 he took the HDFC ERGO Health Suraksha policy which is valid for one year accordingly paid the premium of one year i.e. for 2010-2011 and he maintaining some balance in his account. The complainant further submitted that the opposite parties debited the premium for the renewal of the policy for the year 2011 and 2012 without any instructions and consent of the complainant and stated that he never renewed his policy even after receiving the message through mobile phone and also proposal forms sent by the opposite parties No. 4&5 to renew the policy. But he did not return the proposals forms by confirming the renewal of the policies and also he did not given any instructions to any of the opposite parties to auto-debit the premium amount of the insurance policy form his credit card account. The complainant further submits that the HDFC Bank Ltd., and HDFC ERGO GICL Ltd., are sister concerns. The complainant stated that as  he was  maintaining balance in his account the auto-debit to the health suraksha plan has been done by the opposite parties for 2011-2012 but same was not came to the notice of the complainant  because he  maintains the sufficient balance in his account, but when they attempted to debit the premium 2^nd time for the year 2012-2013 without his authorization, when the funds are insufficient to meet the debits from his account the said fact was came to his notice when he received the legal notices from the opposite parties for repayment of outstanding  debits. The complainant further submits that the opposite parties invited him to conciliate as per the section 62 of arbitration and conciliation at 1996 and advised him to attend before the Opposite PartyNo.6 who is only the collection agent is given a legal title of a conciliator. He had not done anything but asked the complainant to pay an amount to the bank. And also collection agent asked him to pay Rs. 11,567/- the outstanding dues of credit card and the auto - debit done by the opposite parties. Hence the HDFC Bank Ltd., and HDFC ERGO Ltd., are sisters companies and one same umbrella adopting techniques to defraud the customers to cause hardship and constitute unfair trade practice. Hence without any approval and acceptance of the proposals for the renewal of health suraksha plan either electronically or manually and the contract had lapsed. A lapsed contract cannot be enforce either under the Indian contract act 1872 or under the information technology act 2000. Hence he filed this complaint by praying this Honourable Forum (i) To direct the opposite parties to pay back or to refund the complainant the balance on hand when the contract was lapsed for want of renewal at first instance.(ii). To award damages due to inconvenience and mental agony caused the complainant (iii). To award the costs of litigation.

            After serving the notices opposite party No.1,3&5 remained exparte. Opposite party No.4 &opposite party No.6 filed the written versions and opposite party No.2 adopted the written version of opposite party No.6  and they have admitted  the savings bank account of the complainant with their bank and also admitted  that the complainant took the insurance policy and stated that the complainant availed a credit card on his own decision from the opposite party bank on 4.9.2010 and having current outstanding due is Rs. 17,797.06/- as on dated 4.3.2014 which remains unpaid till date. And also stated once the card is acquired by the complainant it is his primary duty to pay back the premium debited from his account from his credit card as reflected in statement of account without fail. And the policy No.51008101/51008102 processed in the credit card account basing on complainants consent on 13.12.2011 the premium was debited for Rs.8,789/- . And the said premium repayment was converted into DAE Loan No.4105295 repayable in 12 EMIs of Rs.732.24/- each. In case the card holder is unable to pay total dues in printed on the bill then he has option to pay the minimum due amounts reflected in the statement of accounts of particular month and carry forward to unpaid dues to following billing period per month.

           3.The opposite parties contended that they renewed the policies bearing Nos. 51008101  and 51008102 processed in the card account  with the consent  given by the complainant through mobile phone on 03.02.2012  and same was recorded by the opposite parties  through voice recording on 03.02.2012 basing on voice recording they  debited the premium of Rs. 8,953/-.the repayment was converted into BAE Loan No.6572316 repayable in 12 EMIs 746.08 each payment via auto-debit reflects in card account for the 1and 2 EMIs only balance 10EMIs have not been cleared by the complainant, the said loan was preclosed on 4.7.2013 and charges have accrued with credit card outstanding while activating auto renewal of health suraksha policy, complainant accept the offer for which the opposite parties have call recordings and it is wrong and false allegation that this was not renewed either electronically and manually the complainant  was aware of all the transactions and payments which were credited in the credit card statements. The opposite parties further stated that the complainant after receiving the notices neither attended the conciliation nor approached the superior officials provided in the conciliation notice. The statement of account and card application shall produce all the recording of the action made by the complainant in renewing the health insurance policy and unnecessarily throughing blame on them. Hence in the light of the above submissions the complaint is liable to be missed.

           4. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A12 and op No. 2 filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Exs. B1 to B3 and chief affidavit of op No.4 filed but no exhibits were marked on behalf of op No.4.

           5.    Now the points for consideration are:-

          (i). whether the Opposite parties debited the policy amount from the account of the complainant without his consent and authorization and there is any deficiency of service on part of them?

          (ii). whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

          (iii). To what result?

          6.  Point No.(i):- The main contention of the complainant is that he holds the  account with opposite parties bank bearing no.02141000010727 and credit card bearing no.4617863002682126 and he took the policy of HDFC ERGO Health Suraksha Policy in the year 2010 and he paid the premium towards the policy and subsequently he has not renewed the policy even though after receiving the several messages through mobile phone and he has not return the proposal forms for renewal, sent by the opposite parties and further stated that he never given any instructions to any of the opposite parties to auto-debit the amount towards premium to the insurance policy i.e. HDFC ERGO GICL Health Suraksha Insurance Policy.

           The complainant further stated HDFC Bank and HDFC ERGO GICL are sister concerns and auto-debited the premium amount from the account of the complainant without any standing authorization by him and stated that the opposite parties debited the amount illegally from the account of the complainant without his authorization and also stated that as  he was not operating the bank account and credit card  the auto-debit done by the opposite parties for first year i.e. 2011-2012 was not came to his notice as the balance  in the account was sufficient enough to meet his debits. But when the opposite parties have done auto-debit even for the second year i.e. 2012-2013 without his authorization, when the funds are in sufficient to meet the debits from his account the said fact was came to his notice when he received the legal notices from the opposite parties for repayment of outstanding dues, notices dated 06.07.2013, 13.07.2013 and 14.08.2013 calling upon to pay the outstanding debits. The opposite parties stated that once the card is acquired and put it on use, it becomes the primary duty of the card holder to pay back the debits from his credit card as reflected in the statement of account without fail. The HDFC ERGO POLICY No: 51008101/51008102 processed in the card account with the consent of the complainant given on 13.12.2011 and premium was debited  for Rs.8,789/- the premium repayment was converted into DAE Lone No;4105295 repayable in 12 EMIs of Rs.732.42 each which reflects the payment in the card for the said EMI’s. Incase the card holder as unable to pay total dues imprinted on the bill, then he has option to pay the minimum due amount reflected in the statement of accounts for that particular month and carry forward the unpaid dues to following billing period /month.. The next contention of the opposite parties, again they renewed the policy by taking the complainant consents in voice recording on 03.02.2012 and premium was debited for 8,953/-.The premium payment was converted into a DAE loan No.6572317 repayable in 12 EMI’s of Rs, 746.08 each but the complainant has not cleared 10 EMI’s and in order to prove their contention the opposite parties got marked Exs. B1 to B3. B1 is the credit card, B2 is the credit card application and Ex. B3 is the CD of the conversation of the complainant.

           The complainant disputed the recording conversation of auto CD i.e. Ex.B3 because it cannot be considered as evidence under section 65A and 85A of Indian Evidence act. In one hand the complainant stated that after 2010 he never made any authorization to renew the policies, on the other hand he stated that only after receiving the legal notices he came to know that there are some outstanding debits in his account because previously he maintained the sufficient balance in his account, hence the opposite parties can debit the same, but when the funds are in sufficient they constrain to sent the legal notice to discharge their debits.  The main contention of the complainant is with out valid consent of him the opposite parties debited the amounts from his account but as per Ex.B2 in the credit card application in the last page  he has signed in the condition  ‘‘ I consent to receive information/service for marketing purposes through Telephone/Mobile/SMS/e-mail/any other mode from the Bank or its agents”  once he signed in the contract by accepting the terms and conditions he cannot go back to another stand,  assuming for a moment without the knowledge of the complainant he  renewed the policy, the reasons best known to the complainant why he has not taken any steps to  stop the renewal of the policy, when the option is very much available under  Ex .A5. Which is under possession of the complainant. The Ex. A10 the statement of account from 12.9.2009 to 30.8.2013 shows that the complainant is operating the account regularly for his daily transactions through his account, that itself creates some sort of doubt that the complainants fails to place entire facts before this forum for redressal of his case except of taking the shelter of Ex.B3, hence we cannot hold the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties in the absence of cogent evidence. Hence the complainant fails to place supportive evidence and material to prove his case, in absence of complete facts and material we cannot come to the conclusion that there is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on part of the opposite parties. Hence accordingly this point is answered.

           7.  Point No.(ii):-  In view of our holding on point no.1 we are of the opinion that the complaint has not approached the forum with clean hands, as he has suppressed the facts he is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

           8.  Point No.(iii): In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs

       Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 11^th day of March, 2015. 

        Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

Lady Member                                                                          President

 

 

C.C.No.71/2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

PW-1:  Muthurevula Subramani (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

RW-1: Rajesh T.Sudhakaran and 5 Others (Chief Affidavit filed). 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	Empty format of Confirmation Letter original.
2.	Sarv Suraksha Policy No.51008102 on Company Letter Head.
3.	Health Suraksha Policy No.51008101 on Company Letter Head.
4.	Health Card HN 12122011000950 Original.
5.	Booklet of Policy Working.
6.	Health claim services guide book with Hospitalization claim form, Present-authorization request form & Customer feedback form.
7.	Invitation to Conciliation. Dt:06.07.2013
8.	Legal Notice. Dt: 13.07.2013.
9.	Legal Notice. Dt: 14.08.2013.
10.	Statement of accounts Dt: 11.12.2009 to 24.08.2013.
11.	Credit Card Statement. Dt: 03.09.2013.
12.	Legal Notice. Dt: 10.09.2013.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.B1.	Photo copies of Statements of Accounts Dt: 03.12.12.
2.	Photo copies of Credit card brochure cum application Form.
3.	Compact Disk containing the Complainants voice recordings.

 

 

                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                 President

 

 

                                                          // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to: - 1. The Complainant.

                   2. The Opposite parties.