Standard chartered bank

Standard chartered bank


Shri C.Y. Guruprasad
‘YOGA’ No.221, 6th Cross
Mysore Bank Colony
BSK 1st Stage
Bangalore – 560 050


Opposite Party:

India Card Centre
3rd and 4th Floor
Raheja Point
Magarath Road
Bangalore- 560 025



This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for the payment of penalty equivalent to one annual premium with interest, equal amount as damages with costs and for such other reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant a senior Citizen holding a Credit Card of the Standard Chartered Bank bearing No.4129-0586-9005-8520 for over seven years. Since the credit card transactions were very highly satisfactory and excellent without a single default, the said bank Viz., S.C.B has consistently kept on increasing the credit limits periodically and the present limit enjoyed by the complainant is @ Rs.2,76,457/- and is valid up to 2010. In view of the excellent conduct of credit card facility, the said bank viz S.C.B. offered yet another credit card bearing No.5543-7441-5785-9568 with a special feature of the dues under this card to be paid in equated monthly installments (EMI) with interest as fixed by the bank from time to time.

The credit card facility has been extended for making all kinds of payments as and when required by the card holder and the said bank will honour such payments immediately on behalf of the card holders and send the statements periodically to the card holders to enable the card holders to remit the money by cash/cheque as per the terms and practice prescribed by the bank. The complainant has taken a Life Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs from M/s TATA AIG Insurance Co. Ltd., in the name of his son Chi. Y.G.Ajay a student, and the annual premium of Rs.13,942/- is payable annually. As per the facility available with M/s. TATA AIG, Insurance Co. Ltd., the complainant has availed the system of payment of the annual premium to the debit of his Credit Card Account No.5543-7441-5785-9568 and accordingly a printed format has been given to M/s. TATA AIG Insurance Co., duly signed and authorizing them to raise the debits to the complainant’s Credit Card Account with the SCB with special scheme to make payments under EMI scheme. In terms of this agreement M/s. TATA AIG Insurance Co. Ltd., would raise debits to his card account with the said bank i.e. Standard Chartered Bank and the said bank would place the said amount to the credit of M/s TATA AIG Insurance Co. Ltd., with their bankers. This has been carried out for payment of the annual premium for the year 2006.

But suddenly, the debit raised by M/s TATA AIG Insurance Co. Ltd., during 2007 for payment of the annual premium for the year 2007, the said bank Viz SCB has dishonored the debit raised by M/s. TATA AIG Insurance Co. Ltd., with the reason “Card Expired” although the said credit card is valid till May 2010. This has rendered the life policy being lapsed and the consequential losses and other issues. The complainant took up the matter with the said bank i.e., SCB in writing and over telephone on several occasions only to get some vague, evasive and irresponsible answers and has not evoked any positive response as remedy to the issue.

The complainant being a resident of Bangalore, upon receipt of the intimation of the policy being lapsed rushed to the Office of M/s. TATA AIG Insurance Co. Ltd., and pleaded with them to revive the policy after arranging funds and remitted the premium amount and got the policy revived amidst physical, financial, emotional stress and loss of reputation etc., From the above it is very clearly evident that although the credit card was and is valid up to 2010, the said bank i.e. SCB has not only acted negligently but also demonstrated its lack of service. Hence the complainant approached this forum.

Op appeared through its counsel, filed its version and also gave evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments on both sides and counsels of both parties submitted their written arguments also.

According to learned counsel for complainant, by looking into the excellent conduct of the complainant towards his bank transactions under credit card, add on card was issued by the OP voluntarily. But the learned counsel for Op submitted that on the application made by the complainant only the said card was issued and the same was not issued voluntarily. If the said additional card was issued on the application made by the complainant, the Op should have produced the same before this forum. Admittedly no fee has been collected by the Op for the issue of additional card. When regular card was with the complainant and the credit limit itself is more than Rs.2½ lakhs there was no necessity to the complainant to make an another application for the additional card. After looking into the banking transactions under the credit card, the Op has issued the add on card voluntarily.

Another point for consideration is whether a separate authorization is required to the bank for the debiting of the premium amount claimed by M/s TATA AIG Insurance Company. The add on card under which equivalent monthly installments were debited was expired during the year 2007. The premium was debited by the Op under the said card regularly till 2006. The add on card was renewed by the Op on its own from 2007 to 2010. According to learned counsel for Op when the claim was made by the insurance company due to change of numbers, the computer did not accept it. No where it is mentioned in any of the document, the separate requisition is required after renewal of add on card. If the requisition is required, the OP should have intimated to the complainant to submit the requisition letter for renewal of EMI benefits. But no such intimation was sent to the complainant. The Op has unable to prove that a separate requisition is required after the renewal of the card. Under such circumstances, the rejection of payment of insurance premium for the year 2007 definitely amounts to deficient act of the Op. The complainant has acted immediately and paid the amount by way of cash into the Insurance Company otherwise the policy would have lapsed because of negligent act of the Op. The complainant underwent mental agony and stress for which, Op has to compensate the complainant.

In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Op. Accordingly, we pass the following order.

Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant with cost of Rs.2,000/- and this amount is to be paid to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.


Post a Comment