HDFC BANK ITS BRANCH MANAGER Vs. S. RAMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Sec. ---21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the "Act") against impugned order dtd. 14/11/2017, passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai ('for short 'State Commission') in First Appeal No.464 of 2012. In this appeal, the Complainant appeal was allowed partly, thereby set aside the Order dtd. 30/4/2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai, South (For short "District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No. 684 of 2009, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent No. 1 herein) was dismissed.

(2.) For convenience, the parties in the present matter are denoted as per their positions in the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. S. Ramu is identified as the Complainant (Respondent No. 1 herein). Meanwhile, M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. is identified as OP-1 Bank (Petitioner herein) & M/s. TTK Health Care Services Pvt. Ltd is identified as OP-2 (Respondent No.2 herein), in the present matter.

(3.) In brief, the OP-1 Bank issued a credit card named "HDFC Bank Health Plus Credit Card" in 2003, providing cashless medical reimbursement benefits up to Rs.50,000.00 for critical care and up to Rs.1,50,000.00 for Medi-claim, on payment of an annual membership fee. The Complainant, along with his wife and daughter as add-on members, enjoyed these benefits until September 2011. However, in July 2007, he received a letter from OP-2 (TPA), informing about third-party administrative services authorized by United India Insurance Company, effective from 1/7/2007. Despite the Complainant's membership fee being debited on 15/10/2008, an account statement received on 19/3/2009 showed a reversal of the membership fee, service tax, and cess, leading to confusion. Upon contacting OP-1's customer service, he learned that his Health Plus Credit Card membership was reversed, compelling him to switch to a "Master Platinum Card." This unilateral decision, over five months after the fee payment for 2008-09, was neither communicated nor explained adequately by OP-1 despite multiple inquiries by him. Notably, there was no prior intimation from OP-1 regarding the discontinuation of the scheme. On 23/3/2009, the Complainant's wife was hospitalized and he incurred a medical expenditure of Rs.17714.00. On filing a claim with OP-2 on 31/3/2009, it was rejected on the grounds of policy non-renewal. Further, while seeking admission for cardiac treatment at another hospital he incurred expenses of Rs.95,620.00 and the claim of his wife was denied due to non-renewal of the policy, forcing him pay for it.