NIDHI BHATNAGAR Vs. CITI BANK N.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I shall dispose of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by law. 2.

(2.) A perusal of plaint, filed by the plaintiffs would show that the plaintiffs are husband and wife, doctors by profession and were credit card holders of defendant no. 1 bank. Plaintiffs filed this suit claiming that the defendants were adopting discriminating credit card policy towards Indian citizens. The policy of defendant bank in case of credit card towards US citizens was of 'zero liability' against misuse/unauthorized use while for UK citizens, the liability was restricted to 50 Sterling Pounds in case of misuse/unauthorized use but in India the policy was that credit card member would not be liable for any misuse after the card member had intimated the Citibank that the card has been lost or stolen and after Citibank has temporarily suspended the card account and listed the Card number in the Warning Bulletin, provided that Card Member has not acted fraudulently or with gross negligence. It is pleaded that the policy of the bank towards Indian citizens was different from the one towards US and UK citizens and this Court should restrain the defendant bank from practicing discriminatory credit card policy in India for misuse/unauthorized use of stolen/lost credit cards.

(3.) PLAINTIFFS have stated in the plaint of this case that the defendants in its reply to the claim before Consumer Forum described the plaintiffs as 'negligent' and 'Shylock'. The words used by the defendants for the plaintiffs were designed to defame the plaintiffs. Similarly, use of word 'negligent' for the plaintiffs was humiliating and defamatory. The plaintiffs belonged to a highly reputed profession of doctors and doctors cannot be negligent, especially the doctors of the repute of the plaintiffs can never afford to be negligent. To be cautious and careful was not only a routine but natural for a doctor. It was also a requirement of their profession, so calling the plaintiffs as 'negligent' was a blot on their character and profession. Plaintiffs, therefore, claimed that defendants were liable to pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 20,05,000/- for defamation, humiliating them, causing harassment to them and for their character assassination as well as for bringing dis- repute to the profession of doctors.