CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 11/04/2012
CC /66/2012
Noushadali,
Nellikottuchalil, S/o.Alihaji
Clifton sanitary, - Complainant
A.A.Complex, Kunnathurmedu,
Palakkad.
(BY ADV.Rajesh.M)
Vs
1. The Manager,
ICICI BANK,
Ambathur industrial Estate,
Ambathur, Chennai-57,
Tamilnadu.
(BY ADV.Ramesh.M)
2. The Manager,
ICICI BANK, - Opposite parties
Near Rappadi Auditorium,
Fort Maidan, Palakkad.
(BY ADV.Ramesh.M)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
Brief facts of the complaint:
The complainant had an account with the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party has issued a credit card in favour of the complainant under the credit card No.4477 4741 6956 7008 and the consumer id is 4334706. The complainant did not avail any of the service of the credit card. Subsequently a health insurance policy is seen issued to the complainant through the credit card facility and the complainant after verification found that the policy is not worth as the services which the opposite parties promised under the same is not available in any of the hospitals. The fact is intimated to the opposite parties with in a period of 10 days. At the time of the issuance of the policy the offer made to the complainant was that he will be getting free health check ups with many hospitals through TTK who was the partner for the opposite parties for providing such a facility. It is came to understand that the opposite parties are not giving any facility as promised. The complainant informed the opposite parties over phone that he is not interesting in the policy and not opted for the policy. No service is availed with policy promised to the complainant. The complainant sent the credit card to the 1st opposite party.
In the meanwhile the opposite parties have taken a sum of Rs.8,507.66 from the credit card account of the complainant towards the issuance of the policy. The complainant through written communication appealed against the 1st opposite party to cancel the demand of the above mentioned amount. Even after receiving back the credit card and receiving the letter the opposite parties did not withdraw their demand for amount of the policy. When the complainant approached SBT Kunnathurmedu branch it was noticed that his name is put in the SEBI defaulter's name and processing loan to a defaulter is as per the policy of the nationalized bank is difficult. Showing all these facts the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite parties. But even after receiving the same the opposite parties did not send any reply to the complainant.
The above acts of opposite parties amount clear deficiency of service and the complainant is to be compensated. So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to withdraw the claim of Rs.8507.66 and to compensate the complainant for mental pain with an amount of Rs.10,000/- along with cost.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions.
Opposite parties admit that the complaint had availed a credit card facility from the opposite party under the credit card No.4477 4741 6956 7008. But the credit card facility was issued to him by the bank on his request. It is not true to say that the complaint had never made any purchase or done any transaction using the credit card facility. The opposite party bank is purely a banking company. That is, its activities only pertains to banking activities. The ICICI Bank has nothing to do with insurance operations or providing of insurance policies. This opposite party bank, had never issued any kind of insurance policy to the complainant through the credit card facility. The facility provided to the customer under the credit card is a credit facility which the complainant can use up to the sanctioned amount for purchases with any vendor accepting the card as a mode of payment instead of cash. The utilized amount is paid back to the bank by the customer within a stipulated due date without any interest or with interest if the customer opts to pay the same with delay; as per terms and conditions governing the credit card. The bank only facilities the customer by settling the 3rd party vendor on behalf of the complainant as and when the third party vendor submits before the bank the statement of purchase. Hence this complaint is also bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties.
The statement of accounts of the complainant's credit card facility shows that the complainant was using his credit card facility for making payments and for other transactions with the insurance company from which he had availed the insurance policy. The complainant had availed an insurance policy from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. on 7/6/2008. The said transaction was split on request of the customer in to 24 EMI's of Rs.560.37 each. The credit card accounts can only be closed after the complainant pays back the balance dues towards the credit card facility availed by him. The opposite party bank has already remitted the transaction amount in full to the respective vendor (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.). The opposite party had reversed several interest charged by this opposite party on the amount due as on 28/03/2009. However since this policy amount of Rs.12,116/- being not received from the 3rd party insurance company could not be reversed and hence in due from the customer. The customer is liable to pay the total outstanding amount of Rs.12,788.75 to the credit card amount.
It is not true to say that the name of the complainant is put in SEBI defaulter's list.
Moreover the complaint is badly barred by limitation under the law since the original incident pertains to 2006 and the complainant filed to invoke any actions until 2012.
There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits and Ext.A1 to A5 marked on the side of complainant. No documentary evidence is adduced on the part of opposite parties.
Heard both parties.
Issues to be considered are
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
f so, what is the relief and cost?
Issues No.I & II
The complainant had an account with the 2nd opposite party and he had been issued with a credit card from the 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party. The complainant did not done any purchase nor done any transaction through the credit card issued to him. Subsequently the complainant had been issued with a health insurance policy through credit card facility. On verification the complainant came to understand that the policy is not worth as services which the opposite parties promised. And then facilities are not available in any of the hospitals. So the complainant informed the opposite parties through phone within 10 days that he is not interested in the policy and not opted for the policy. On 3/3/09 the complainant sent the credit card to the 1st opposite party. It is evident from Ext.A2 document. In the meanwhile the opposite parties have taken an amount of Rs.8,507.66 from the credit card account of the complainant. When the complainant approached the nationalized bank SBT, Kunnathurmedu branch it was noticed that his name is put in the SEBI defaulter's name.
It is evident from Ext.A1 document, the secret code credit card, that the complainant has not used the credit card facility as the secret code is not been opened. In Ext.A5 document it is stated as “Policy Number:4477 XXXX XXXX 7008 with your due consent. Since you had raised your grievance with us we have taken up the matter with Lombard and they had provided us your consent in the form of VRS (Voice Recording System), where it is evident that you have given consent for debitng the policy premium to your credit card account”.
So it is clear that the complainant has raised grievance in accepting the policy. And opposite party stated that the complainant has given consent through VRS. But the opposite party has not produced the same. Without the consent of the complainant the opposite parties have used the credit card facility. The complainant alleges that name is put in the SEBI defaulter's list. But no document is produced to show the same.
From the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties claim for Rs.8,507.66 (Rupees Eight thousand five hundred and seven rupees 66 paisa only) shall stand cancelled and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs,3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 24th day of September, 2012.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1– Secret code of credit dt.29.11.2006
Ext.A2- Copy of the letter to 1st opposite party dt.03.03.2009
Ext.A3- Copy of the letter to 1st opposite party dt.04.02.2012
Ext.A4- Copy of the lawyer notice and postal receipts, Acknowledgements
dt.08.02.2012
Ext.A5- Reply letter dt.09.03.2012
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.
