STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

HDFC Bank Limited, SCO 50-51, 1^st Floor, Phase 3B2, Mohali (also at SCO No.87, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh) through its Legal Manager, Aman Gupta

……Appellant/OP No.1

V E R S U S

1.           Smt. Satnam Kaur wife of Sh. Surjit Singh resident of #1154, 2nd Floor, Universal Enclave, Sector 46-B, Chandigarh.

Respondent No.1/complainant

2.           HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai – 400020 through its Managing Director.

              ....Respondent/OP  No.2

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for the appellant

PER  NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.2.2012, rendered by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant and directed the opposite parties as under :-

“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.”

2.                     The facts of the complaint, in brief, are that the complainant was having an account No.13071000092380 with H.D.F.C. Bank in Phase VII, Mohali. She wanted to shift that account to Sector 46 Branch at Chandigarh, because the Branch at Mohali was far away from her house. However, instead of shifting the said account, it opened a new account, with its branch at Chandigarh. It was stated that she was also having a credit card issued by H.D.F.C. Bank. She received letter dated 26.8.2010 issued by Opposite Party No.1 showing that a sum of Rs.8,841/- was debited to her Credit Card Account, as premium, for an insurance policy issued by opposite party No.2. It was further stated that the complainant immediately intimated the Bank that she had not made any request for issuance of the policy, nor she filled in the proposal form and, therefore, the issuance of policy, in her name, and debiting her Credit Card Account against the premium of the said policy, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. However, no action was taken. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.1 issued credit card statement, demanding a sum of Rs.13,582.52 on account of premium amount, alongwith late charges, penalties etc. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                     Opposite party No.1, in its written reply, stated that the complainant never visited its branch, for the issuance of the said policy, and that the policy was issued by opposite party No.2, which was totally a separate office, through its own agent or through telephone banking/credit card division etc. However, it was admitted that the complainant was an account-holder of opposite party No.1/Bank, and that the amount mentioned above was debited to her account. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.                     Opposite party No.2, in its separate written reply, stated that the policy was extended to the complainant, after a request was lodged by opposite party No.1/Bank, on her behalf. It was further stated that the prayer of the complainant, for withdrawal of the said policy, could not be accepted, as the said policy was extended from 23.08.2010 to 22.08.2011, which period had already lapsed. It was denied that the complainant ever requested for cancellation of the said policy at any stage. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.                     The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 

6.                     After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, as mentioned, in the opening para of this order.

7.                     Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/Opposite party No.1

8.                     We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the admission stage, and have perused the record of the case.

9.                     It is submitted, by the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.1, that the policy, in question, was extended to the complainant, by opposite party No.2, and the same was valid from 23.8.2010 to 22.8.2011.  It was further submitted that the complainant had duly received the policy, but, still she did not opt for cancellation, within the free look period. It was further submitted that she enjoyed all the benefits flowing from the policy, for 10 months, as the same was issued, in August 2010, and the consumer complaint was filed by her only in May 2011.  It was further submitted that the appellant had merely followed the instructions, for the payment of amount, through credit card and had paid premium to Opposite Party No.2 and, as such, the appellant was not a beneficiary, under the policy.  It was further submitted that the policy was issued by HDFC Ergo (Opposite Party No.2) and the same could only be cancelled by the Opposite Party No.2, in which the appellant/bank had no role to play and, as such, there was no deficiency in service on its part.

10.                  After going through the record, it is evident, that the no proposal form was ever filled in by the complainant, for issuing the policy.  Rather, in their separate written replies, both the opposite parties were passing on the buck, on each other, with regard to the issuance of the insurance policy.  While, on the one hand, opposite party No.1, in its written reply, stated that the policy was issued by HDFC ERGO (i.e. Opposite party No.2) through its own representative, or through telephone banking/ credit card division, on the other hand, opposite party No.2, in its written reply stated that the policy was extended to the complainant, after a request was lodged by the bank (i.e. opposite party No.1).   So, in the absence of any tangible evidence, coming from the side of the opposite parties, we are of the view, that the District Forum rightly held that the amount towards premium was wrongly debited to the credit card account of the complainant, as she never requested for issuance of the policy, and that the demand of Rs.13,582.52 was illegal.

11.                  No doubt, according to the Counsel for the appellant, the policy was issued in August 2010, whereas the present complaint was filed in May 2011 and she never chose to cancel or surrender the same earlier.  Though, in the complaint, the complainant had admitted that she received the policy, but it was also stated by her that she immediately thereafter approached opposite Party No.1, which assured that the policy would be cancelled. Once, it is established that an insurance policy was issued without any proposal form, and without any request of the complainant, then we are left with no option, than to believe her.  Further the appellant has not been able to prove as to what benefits, were enjoyed by the complainant, in relation to the said policy.  The act of the opposite parties firstly, in issuing the policy, without any proposal form, and, thereafter, debiting the credit card account of the complainant, in relation to the amount of premium, surely amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.  Hence, we are of the considered opinion, that the order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.                  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, in limine, with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

13.                  Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

18.05.2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

hg