New Delhi -°C
Today in New Delhi, India

Oct 21, 2020-Wednesday
-°C

Humidity
-

Wind
-

Select Country
Select city
ADVERTISEMENT
Home / Punjab / Forum penalises bank for deficiency of service

Forum penalises bank for deficiency of service

A woman has succeeded in her fight against a private bank as she will get R65,000 from the bank, which fraudulently invested her Rs 50,000. The complainant, Nirmal Devi, made several requests seeking return of her money, which was invested wrongfully, but finally got justice when she approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

punjab Updated: Jun 02, 2013, 22:59 IST
Gurpreet Singh Mehak
Gurpreet Singh Mehak
Hindustan Times

A woman has succeeded in her fight against a private bank as she will get R65,000 from the bank, which fraudulently invested her R50,000.

The complainant, Nirmal Devi, made several requests seeking return of her money, which was invested wrongfully, but finally got justice when she approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. She had filed a complaint against opposite parties -- Sirhind branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd, and Khanna branch manager of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company.


The COMPLAINT

The opposite parties had approached Nirmal Devi to invest some amount in a fixed deposit scheme with assurance to return the amount with higher rate of interest. She agreed to invest R50,000 in the shape of fixed deposit with the Sirhind branch of bank and the latter opened her savings account.

She alleged the bank wrongly invested R50,000 in Unit Linked Pension II Scheme of the Khanna branch of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company without her consent. She received a letter, whereby the Khanna branch demanded the premium of R1 lakh more from her by disclosing the name of the policy from which she came to know that her R50,000 had been fraudulently invested by the official of the Sirhind branch in Unit Linked Pension scheme just to get more commission.

On several occasions, she requested the opposite parties to return the said amount along with interest but in vain.

A notice was sent to both branches of the bank but the Sirhind branch chose not to appear to contest the complaint so it was proceeded against ex-parte. The Khanna branch stated that the policy was availed by the complainant in 2008 and if there was any misrepresentation, as alleged, the objection should have been filed within two years of the availing the same, but the complainant failed to do so.

The forum observed that the woman had already stated in her complaint that she has not received any policy documents and she had not invested R50,000 in the life insurance. Rather, she invested the amount in the fixed deposit and savings bank account was also opened by the Sirhind branch for the said purpose. But in the mandate form for direct debit, no savings account of the complainant is mentioned, which shows that instead of opening the savings bank account of the complainant, the Sirhind branch directly sent R50,000 through demand draft to the Khanna branch for obtaining insurance policy, which is deficiency of service on the part of the Sirhind branch.

The forum accepted the complaint and directed the Sirhind branch of give R10,000 compensation and ordered the Khanna branch to refund R50,000 with 9 % interest from the date of its deposit till its realisation along with R5,000 as litigation charges.

ht epaper

Sign In to continue reading