Delhi

New Delhi

CC/25/2008

Vinod Trivedi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Aug 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110001.

 

Case No.CC/25/08                                                                                                                                                                                  Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Vinod Trivedi,

S/o late Sh. U.S Trivedi,

91, Jor Bagh, New Delhi

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. ICICI Bank Ltd.,

        Video Con Tower, 2^nd floor, Block-E-1,

        Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi-110055

 

2. ICICI Bank Ltd.,

        Consumer Services, Music World Road No.1,

        Banjara Hills, Hyderabad (A.P)

 

3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

        Customer Support, 3^rd Floor, Zenith House,    Keshav Rao, Khadye Marg, Opp. Race Cours,

        Mahalakshmi Mumbai

                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTYIES

 

ORDER

President:  C.K Chaturvedi

The long and short of the whole complaint is in respect of certain payments made by OP on behalf of complainant for buying an insurance policy issued by ICICI Lombard Insurance Company. The complainant had taken a credit card no, from the OP1 & OP2, on which he regularly made payments, but came to know of the policy from the monthly statements received by him which reflected increasing sum every month for policy taken. He represented repeatedly that he had not applied for any policy ever and sought reversal. It was after long struggle and after engaging a lawyer to reply to legal notice of OP to complainant that OP reversed all demands. But OP again sent some small demand which has triggered this complaint.

The OP has replied accepting all facts of past reversals on complaints of complainant and does not explain fresh outstandings.

We have considered the whole matter and find that once complainant is not interested to be consumer of OP, it should not thrust itself on OP by raising mechanical demands and harass him. In the circumstances, we hold OP deficient in dealing with complainant and direct it to issue a NOC to complainant and close his card, by taking a written consent from him. We direct OP to pay Rs.15,000/- to complainant for harassment and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

Pronounced in open Court on 01.08.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (RITU GARODIA)

 MEMBER