BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Om Parkash s/o late Sh.Mukand Lal, # 5729-A, Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  Standard Chartered Bank, SCO No.137-138, Sector 9-c, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2]  Ravinder Sharma, # 707/1, Sector 36-B, Chandigarh-160 036.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                  PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

          Sh. Jatin Kumar, counsel for OP.1.and proxy for                      Sh.Neeraj Sharma, Counsel for OP No.2.         

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER 

        It is case of the complainant that he had taken House Building Loan of Rs.3,70,000/- on 12.5.2005 and Rs.1,30,000/- on 15.6.2005 respectively from OP No.1 and for the purpose of repayment of loan amount, the OP No.1 had opened a Home Saver A/c No.700-0-503005-7 of the complainant. At the time of opening of Home Saver Account, the OP No.1 promised that the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers issued by the Banking Codes and Standards Board of India will be followed and adhered to in all future dealings. As per clause 5 of the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers, the OP No.1 was liable to treat all personal information of complainant as private and confidential and would have not reveal information or data relating to accounts of the complainant.

    It is further case of the complainant that in violation of clause 5 of the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customer, the OP No.1 has disclosed all his personal, private and confidential information to OP No.2 on 22.4.2008 & 11.1.2010 and provided him the bank statement w.e.f. 5.1.2008 to 11.1.2010. The complainant wrote two letters to OP No.1 on 10.9.2010 and 8.10.2010, but to no effect.

    It is further case of the complainant that OP No.1 disclosed private and confidential information to OP No.2 without his knowledge, confirmation and authority letter. According to the complainant, the said act of OP No.1 is illegal, unethical, unjust, unfair trade practices and OP NO.1 has been deficient in providing service to the complainant. Hence this complaint.

2.      In reply filed by OP No.1, it is denied that they had disclosed all personal, private and confidential information of the complainant to OP No.2. It is also denied that OP No.1 had provided the bank statement to OP No.2. It is submitted that all the customers have the option to get hardcopy statement by way of contacting the Bank’s Phone Banking Service, sending written letter, personal visit to branches etc. apart from periodic receipt of statement of account and such requests are honored only post conducting necessary verification at the Bank’s end. It is further submitted that the Bank strictly prohibits the fact of disclosing or cascading any confidential information relates to a customer to third party. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.      OP No.2 filed reply and took preliminary objection that complainant is not a Consumer. On merits, it is denied that the answering OP No.2 has received any information regarding the Home Saver Account of the complainant from OP No.1. In view of this, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.       We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record.

6.       The contention of the complainant in this complaint is that the OP No.1 has disclosed his personal, private and confidential information regarding his House Building Loan Account, by way of providing bank statements (Annexure C-3), duly authenticated with his seal to a third person, namely, Mr. Ravinder Sharma- OP No.2, which is against the ethics and violation of the provisions of clause-5 of the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers. Therefore, the OP provided the aforesaid information to a third party without the knowledge, confirmation and authority letter of the complainant, which resulted into unnecessary harassment and also put his image and respect at stake.

7.  On the other hand, OP No.1 has strongly refuted the charges levelled by the complainant and has asked the complainant to put to strict proof of the allegations made by him.  They further stated that the bank strictly prohibits the fact of disclosing any confidential information as per Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers (Annexure C-2), wherein under the heading of Privacy and Confidentiality, it has been mentioned that ‘We will treat all your personal information as private and confidential (even when you are no longer a customer)’. The OP further clarified that they are committed and adhering to the Bank’s Commitment laid down by Banking Codes and Standard Boards of India (BCSBI). So, OP No.1, vehemently denied that the bank has violated Clause 5 of the Code by disclosing any personal, private, confidential information to a third person i.e. OP No. 2; rather, the bank is duty bound to provide expert service to all its customers including the complainant. Hence, denied any unfair trade practice as well deficiency on its part. However, it has been accepted by OP No.1 that the complainant had opened a Home Saver Account NO.700-0-503005-7 (Annexure C-1) and took house building loan from OP-bank.

8.      After hearing the rival contentions of both the parties as well as carefully going through the record of the case, it has been observed that the complainant has not been able to provide any cogent evidence, in order to prove his assertion made in the complaint. Even the statements annexed with the complaint, are not a foolproof source, to disclose the fact that, those had been procured by any third party. The matter does not rest here. The complainant has specifically alleged in the complaint that OP No.1 has disclosed his personal, private and confidential information to OP No.2, without his knowledge; whereas, OP No.2 in his reply has categorically denied regarding the same.  Furthermore, during arguments, he has miserably failed to prove his assertion that the said bank is negligent in providing services to customers as well as any unfair trade practice on its part. 

9.      In view of the above discussion and conspicuous circumstances of the case, we find no substance, weight and merit in the complaint filed by the complainant and accordingly dismiss the same being lack of merit without any orders as to costs.

10.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.