1. This first appeal has been filed by Dalsukhbhai P. Patel, Appellant herein and original complainant before the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being aggrieved by the order of that Commission, which had dismissed his complaint of deficiency in service against Union Bank of India, Respondent herein and Opposite Party before the State Commission. 2. Facts of the case, according to the Appellant, who was working in Kuwait while his family members were residing in Ahmedabad, are that he had a joint account with his wife Smt. Uma D. Patel in Respondent Bank with account number 14024. Appellant son also had a joint account with Appellant wife, the account number being 12035. Thus, Appellant wife was the joint accountee in respect of both accounts. Appellant transferred deposits to his joint account from his earlier account with State Bank of India and informed the Respondent Bank on 25.04.1996 that he has placed 11 time deposits of Rs.1 Lakh each with the Respondent Bank with maturity date in May, 1996 and requested Respondent Bank to adjust the outstanding of his overdraft fully against the maturity value and to keep the balance in NRNR deposits of Rs.1 Lakh each for further three years by reinvestment at current rate of interest. He further instructed the Respondent Bank that on maturity of NRNR deposits the interest be credited to his NRE account; all new NRNR deposits be kept with the bank and overdraft account be closed and details of renewal be supplied to the Appellant. Since Appellant received no response he gave reminder on 30.05.1996 and also instructed the opposite party to allow overdraft to his son through his wife to the tune of Rs.1 Lakh. Since the same was not replied to, the Appellant approached the Respondent Bank and the latter clarified that it does not have the one time deposit of Rs.1.5 Lakh which may be lying with Appellant wife and, therefore, the same cannot be renewed; that the bank had re-invested six deposits of Rs.1 Lakh and one deposit of Rs.80,170/- for three years @ 18.5% per annum and kept the same in NRNR deposit with the bank. Thereafter, bank demanded fresh power of attorney to allow Appellant wife and son to have overdraft facility against the security. A family dispute ensued between the Appellant, his wife and his son pursuant to which Appellant enquired whether any sum has been withdrawn by his wife or his son and, if so, under what authority. Respondent Bank informed that the Appellant wife and his son have withdrawn Rs.2.20 Lakhs being facility given under overdraft account. Appellant alleged that the Respondent Bank was guilty of deficiency in service in permitting his family members to withdraw an amount more than Rs.1 Lakh since it had clearly instructed Respondent Bank to permit his family members to only withdraw that amount. He, therefore, issued a legal notice to the Respondent Bank, which was not complied with. Being aggrieved, he filed a complaint before the State Commission and requested that Respondent Bank be directed to (i) settle his account by crediting the deficit amount as per their contract with the Appellant; (ii) pay interest on the maturity amount at the rate of 18.5% per annum from the date of maturity; and (iii) pay Rs.5 Lakhs as damages and Rs.10,000/- as costs. 3. Respondent Bank on being served entered appearance and filed a written rejoinder denying any deficiency in service. It confirmed that there were two joint accounts and in both the accounts Mrs. Umaben Patel, wife of the Appellant, was the joint account holder. Since Appellant had executed a power of attorney in favour of Mrs. Umaben Patel, she did not require any permission of the Appellant in operating the accounts as she was the joint account holder of the accounts, which could be operated y eitheror urvivor 4. The State Commission after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint by observing as follows : he opponent bank was duty bound to act as per the mandate given by the complainant himself. A mention may be made that the complainant does not deny his signature on the power of attorney produced at Exh. 11/2 dated Sept. 9, 1991. The complainant rather has admitted the execution of the same, but according to him he had not authorized her to operate the bank account. On plain reading of clause D of Exh. 112 last line at page 4, it is clearly stated that Smt. Umaben was authorized to operate bank account and make deposit transfer or encash the same. The argument of complainant is that he could not permit his wife to operate his NRI A/c as per law and, therefore, he had not done so. As a matter of fact the complainant has done so by committing breach of law, if any, at his own risk. The opponent bank is bound by the mandate given by the account holder as per law and not obeying the mandate would amount to a deficiency in service on the part of bank and it will lead to civil consequences. It appears that because of subsequent disputes between the complainant and his family, they have prompted him to file this complaint. The opponent bank has acted legally and as per the mandate of the account holder. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the present first appeal has been filed. 6. Appellant was present in person and reiterated the complaint that he had made before the State Commission. He specifically stated that the general power of attorney, on which the State Commission had relied, was actually a orgedpower of attorney, in which two lines with the words lso authorized to operate my bank accounts and to transfer bank deposits held in my nameshad been inserted by his estranged wife in connivance with Respondent Bank. Further, the State Commission erred in not taking note of the fact that as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines no Resident Indian can operate the account of a Non-Resident through a power of attorney and, therefore, Respondent-Bank should not have permitted his wife who was an Indian national to operate his NRE account. 7. Respondent Bank on the other hand stated that the allegation made by the Appellant was an afterthought following the dispute that he had with his wife and family. The general power of attorney at Annexure-F, which was given to the Respondent Bank by the Appellant, clearly states that he had permitted his wife Smt. Uma D. Patel to inter alia operate his accounts and to transfer bank deposits held in his name. Therefore, the Respondent Bank was duty bound to act on this general power of attorney. The State Commission had rightly taken into account these facts and dismissed the complaint. 8. We have heard the Appellant in person and the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank and have also gone through the evidence on record. We agree with the order of the State Commission. The Appellant has also not been able to produce any evidence to support his statement that the general power of attorney on the basis of which the Respondent Bank acted was a forged document and an interpolation was made on this document to the advantage of his estranged wife in connivance with the Respondent Bank. On the other hand, as observed by the State Commission, the Respondent Bank was bound by the written mandate given to it by the Appellant as per law to act on its contents and it would have been guilty of deficiency in service if it had not done so. We, therefore, uphold the order of the State Commission, which has given cogent reasons in support of its conclusion in dismissing the complaint. 9. The present first appeal having no merit is dismissed. No costs.