COMPLAINT FILED ON:02.03.2010

DISPOSED ON:19.06.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

19^th DAY OF JUNE-2012

       PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY                PRESIDENT                        

                          SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                  MEMBER

O R D E R

SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

The complainant in person filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 to initiate necessary action against the OP for recovery of Rs.62,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. and to award costs of the proceedings on the said amount on the allegation of deficiency in service.

2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-

The complainant has obtained Credit Card from the OP bearing No.4384 5999 9354 5192 on 24.08.2007 and the credit limit then was Rs.50,000/-.  OP offered a TATA AIG Health Insurance Policy for his family members on sending Rs.518.25/- from his Credit Card account every month to TATA AIG.   OP had sent a sum of Rs.518,25 ps to TATA AIG from his credit card account on 24.11.2007 and OP changed the instalement amount of Rs.518.25/- to Rs.304-83 ps per month and sent the same to TATA AIG.   OP increased the policy premium amount to Rs705/- per month and paid every month to TATA AIG from the complainant Card account from 04.04.2009.   OP again decreased the instalment amount to Rs.692/- instead of Rs.705/- per month.   OP has not issued any identification card or Health Card to take treatment though the complainant paying monthly instalment amount through his credit card.    The complainant paid sum more than Rs.12,000/- so far but he has not got any benefit from TATA AIG (from Feb-2008 to Feb-2010).   On 24.07.2009 the wife of the complainant was admitted to Suraksha Nursing Home, Ramamurthy Nagar, Bangalore for treatment, the hospital authorities refused to give treatment since the TATA AIG policy is not admissible.   OP has not taken any responsibility on the health care of policy members and simply sending premium amount and adding financial charges and service charges.    OP had sent the overdue charges information to the CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau of India) informing that the home loan has rejected by S.B.I., Bank, Banaswadi Branch, Bangalore.   Hence the complainant has lost more than Rs.50,000/- by spending amount for plan approval, valuation of the property, legal opinion and etc.    The complainant has submitted the copy of the letter dt.01.09.2009 where the home loan rejected.   Several request to Customers care has been made by the complainant but the OP not answered, finally given a letter on 13.01.2010 by the complainant to the OP.    Hence the complainant is seeking necessary relief to initiate action against the OP for recovery of Rs.62,000/- with interest.

3. On appearance OP filed version contending that the present complaint filed is not maintainable, as the complainant has put forth only illusions instead of facts before this Forum.    The complainant is a credit card holder and availing the Banking services from Aug-2007, the credit limit of the above card was Rs.50,000/-.   The outstanding amount as on June-2010 is Rs.25,112.79/-.    The complainant as per the card application form and agreement was required to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the use of the said card and the complainant was liable to repay the outstandifng amount as per the SOA received by him every month.  OP and TATA AIG Insurance had entered into Corporate Agency Agreement with leading services and product providers to provide premium offers to the credit cardholders.   As per the terms and conditions of the service guidelines, all disputes between credit cardholder and the service provider shall be resolved between the complainant and TATA AIG.   OP shall not be responsible for the quality of the offerings by the marketing partner.   The dispute is between the complainant and TATA AIG insurance.   The said TATA AIG Insurance is a necessary party to the complainant, the complainant has not made the claim petition nor contacted TATA AIG for reimbursement of the bill.    The complainant had opted for the Family Secure Injury Plan from TATA AIG Insurance.   The policy MRP.250000042593 and the inception date were 03.11.2007, however the policy got cancelled on 07.11.2007.   The policy debit was done on 24.11.2007 for Rs.518.25/- and Rs.5,182.50/-.   The above amounts of RS.6219/- were credited.   The same is reflected in SOA from 18.11.2007 to 18.12.2007.   The premium amount was reduced from Rs.518.25/- to Rs.304.83 and the policy commenced from December-2007.   OP is not aware why the premium amount was reduced.    The TATA AIG had agreed to refund the erroneous debit.   The complainant had availed policy which was to commence from 02.08.2008.   The policy debit was done on 04.09.2008 for Rs.705/-.   The same is reflected in SOA from 19.08.2008 to 18.09.2008.   The policy availed by the complainant is not a Mediclaim Policy; hence the health card was not issued.   The complainant can avail the reimbursement against Medical bills subject to terms and conditions of the policy with TATA AIG.    If at all any claim is liable to be paid that needs to be paid by TATA AIG.     The complainant has used the credit facility and has made part payments or no payment towards the outstanding dues.    As a result of irregular payments, charges have been levied on the card account, in conformity to the terms agreed.   As per RBI directions, the Bank has to report the card account information to CIBIL Owing to non payment of dues for more than 180 days, the card account is termed as non performing asset, hence they had to write off the outstanding on account.   OP has acted prudently and diligently and strictly adhered to and followed the banking norms.   There is no any mistake/negligence on the part of the OP.  There is no cause of action to file the complaint, OP shall not be responsible for the quality of the service offerings by the marketing partner and the claim has been settled between complainant and TATA AIG Insurance.   There is no deficiency in service.  Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. 

4.   The complainant in order to substantiate complaint averments filed affidavit evidence and the Assistant Manager of OP filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version.

5.   Arguments from complainant’s side heard, OP side taken as heard.

6.   The points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:

Point No.1:-Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

           Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainant are entitled for the relief’s now claimed?

           Point No.3:-To What order?

7.   We record our findings on the above points:

           Point No.1:-Negative

   Point No.2:-Negative

   Point No.3:-As per final order.

R E A S O N S

8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant obtained Credit Card from OP-Bank bearing No.4384 9354 5192 on 24.08.2007 and the credit limit then was Rs.50,000/-.   Annexure-A is the relevant document.    The complainant claims that OP offered TATA AIG Health Insurance Policy for the complainant and his family members and was sending Rs.518.25/- from his Credit Card account every month to TATA AIG as per Annexure-B Statement of Account.   OP had sent sum of Rs.5182.50ps to TATA AIG from the Credit Card Account on 24.11.2007 as per Annexure-C.   It is stated that OP changed the instalment amount from Rs.518.25 to Rs.304.83 per month and sent the same to TATA AIG as per Annexure-D the statement of Account.    Further it is stated that OP increased the policy premium amount to Rs.705/- per month and paid every month to TATA AIG from the complainants card account from 04.04.2009 as per Annexure-E statement of account.   Further OP has decreased the instalment amount to Rs.692/- instead of Rs.705/- per month as per Annexure-F.  

            The grievances of the complainant is that OP has not issued any identification card or Health Card to take the treatment, the complainant had paid monthly instalments through his credit card and he has paid more than Rs.12,000/- so far but he has not got any benefit from TATA AIG (from Feb-2008 to Feb-2010).    It is stated that on 24.07.2009 the wife of complainant was admitted to Suraksha Nursing Home, Ramamurthy Nagar, Bangalore for medical treatment, but the hospital authority refused to give treatment as TATA AIG policy is not admissible.

            The defence of the OP is that Op-Bank provides some privileges to the card holders such as World Wide Acceptance, Free Credit Period, Extended Credit Facility, Internet Banking, Credit Shield Extension, Phone Banking, Reward Programme, Zero lost credit liability, Petrol Surcharge Waiver, Balance Transfer, Loan on Phone, Travel Privileges, Additional Cards, SMS alerts etc.  These facilitates are provided to the cardholder it is left to the cardholder to accept the offer or not.    The complainant as per the card application form and agreement was required to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the use of the said card and the complainant was liable to repay the outstanding amount as per the SOA received by him every month Annexure-A is the credit card application form.   It is stated that the OP and TATA AIG Insurance had entered into corporate agency agreement as per Annexure-B, thus the disputes between the complainant and TATA AIG Insurance shall be resolved between themselves.    The complainant has not impleaded the TATA AIG Insurance as a necessary party to the complaint.   The complainant has not made the claim petition nor contacted TATA AIG for reimbursement of the bill.

            It is stated that the complainant opted for the family secure injury plan policy from TATA AIG Insurance.  The policy MRP.250000042593 and the inception date were 03.11.2007, however the policy got cancelled on 07.11.2007.   The policy debit was done on 24.11.2007 for Rs.518.25/- and Rs.5,182.50/-.   These amounts of Rs.6,219/- wee credited to the card account of the complainant.   The same is reflected in the statement of account from 18.11.2007 to 18.12.2007   Annexure-D is the Statement of Account.   From this it becomes clear that the amount of Rs.6219/- is credited to the card account of the complainant on account of the policy being got cancelled.  Hence the complainant cannot claim the said amount for refund as the same has been already credited to his account.   The premium amount was reduced from 518.25/- to 304.83/- and the policy commenced from December-2007.    OP is not aware why the premium amount was reduced.  It is stated that the TATA AIG had agreed to refund the erroneous debit.   In view of the same, we are of the view that it is for the complainant to proceed against the TATA AIG to get any refund of the amounts paid towards the premium of the policy.

            Further the complainant availed Policy FSP01000009894 which was commenced from 02.08.2008 and the policy debit was done on 04.09.2008 for Rs.405/- and the same is reflected in the Statement of Account Annexure-E.   It may be noted that whatever the premiums that were paid to TATA AIG, the OP cannot be held responsible to refund that amount.   Since the policy availed by the complainant was not a mediclaim policy, hence the policy card was not issued.   The complainant could have claimed reimbursement against Medical bills with TATA AIG and Op cannot be held responsible to reimburse the medical bills or to refund any premium amount paid.   Thus the complainant has not made out any case to claim refund of amount of Rs.12,000/- paid towards the premium of the policies to TATA AIG from his credit card account.

            The other grievances of the complainant is OP had sent over due charges information to the CIBIL (credit information bureau of India) informed that the Home loan was rejected by SBI Bank, Banasavadi Branch, Bangalore.   Thus he claims that he has lost more than Rs.50,000/- by spending amount for plan approval, valuation of property, legal opinion etc and OP has issued the letter as per Annexure-J.   After going through Annexure-J it becomes clear that the complainant has not repaid the amount due in his card account.   He was reminded to make future payments on or before the due date shown in his monthly statements to avoid additional charges to his account.   Annexure-K is the copy of the letter submitted by the complainant to OP on 13.01.2010 to stop the payment of TATA AIG.  

            It may be noted that as per the RBI directions, OP-Bank has to report the card account information to CIBIL Owing to non payment of dues for more than 180 days, the card account is termed as non performing asset thus OP is justified informing the CIBIL about nonpayment of dues of the complainant in his card account.    The complainant has not placed any material to show that he has suffered loss to an extent of Rs.50,000/- by spending for plan approval, valuation of property, legal opinion etc.   When complainant was not regular in repaying the amounts of his credit card account, OP cannot be blamed.   Therefore,   the complainant has not made due any case that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

            The complaint filed by the complainant relates to recovery of Rs.12,000/- paid from his credit card account towards premiums of the policy of TATA AIG by OP-Bank and Rs.50,000/- stated to have been spent for approval of the plan, valuation of the property and for legal opinion etc.   Apart from these 2 items there is no other claim regarding the account statements sent to the complainant relating to his credit card account or any excess amount recovered by OP.  

9.During the pendency of these proceedings, the complainant started filing Memos from time to time stating that he has paid excess amount of Rs.55,218/- and OP has charged many of additional charges to his account and an amount of Rs.50,036/- is to be recovered from OP regarding excess amount paid.   Lastly he has filed the Memo on 11.05.2012 stating that OP is to be directed to refund Rs.50,036/- which has been shown in the Memo filed on 17.05.2011.   In the Memos filed on 17.05.2011 at para-4 the complainant has stated that OP added some amount in the purchase column which the complainant has not known and added many charges on that amount (shown as document Nos.4, 5 N 6) thus the total amount is shown in that Memos as Rs.50,036/-.    OP has furnished the statement of account relating to the credit card account of the complainant by filing Memo on 02.02.2011.    It may be noted that as the amounts claimed in these accounts are not the subject matter of the compliant hence we are unable to consider the subsequent Memos filed with regard to amounts claimed for refund.   The complainant has sought permission to approach the another Court to file the case.   In our view no permission is required for claiming any relief in respect of subsequent events.    Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs claimed, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.   Considering the nature of dispute no order as to costs.

        Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the  19^th day of JUNE-2012.)

MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT

Cs.