PRIVACY POLICY  OF SERVICE   PROVIDERS –NORMS NOT FOLLOWED BY BANKS AND OTHER AGENCIES.

High court of Delhi was dealing with a case of a young man living in Srinivaspuri in south Delhi who committed suicide allegedly harassed by recovery agents Court said in the order-“It is appropriate to remind the financial institutes that they are bound by law.The recovery of loan or seizur of vehicle can only be done through legal means.”Supreme court has also warned the banks to follow 10-point RBI Guidelines mandating recovery agents to be scrupulously polite in their dealings with borrowers

Further ,It’s a news of the day in the paper-“Police have busted a gang of credit card thieves,including two courier company employees,who allegedly stole credit cards being sent to users through courier and made hefty purchases through them”  6^th June,2008, Times of India

                You are greeted with such surprises    early morning through paper or TV. Nothing new,it has become every day’s affair.See the method they adopt-Employee of one corrier company collected bundles of envelops containing credit cards from the bank for delivery to the courier office.The gang would zero in on certain envelops ,like those addressed to business executives.These cards would be replaced with thick paper card .The gang creates   fake identity proofs matching the names in the credit cards and used the cards for high value purchases.-this is the observation made by the police.

                                Consumer courts have observed in certain cases, banks send credit cards to their account holders on the basis of their balances and regular dealings with the banks even without their desire to go for such cards. Card is accompanied with application form to be signed by the customer. They are allured with an offer to have this card free of charges for one year .At times such cards are returned back by the customer which never reaches back and are hijacked on the way .Confidential pin  number follows immediately after the card  issued and sent to the customer Once card was not accepted,this letter is also returned by the customer which was waited by someone to play a fraud on them-and you do not know when you became credit  holder and how so much purchase was made on your card.The form so sent was found very well signed, just matching your specimen signatures available with the bank and deposited with the bank making you entitled to use the card.

All the above stated facts compel us to think-are the consumers safe in the hands of big business houses,manufacturers and traders,service providers and also under law and order situation in the country.The answer is –There are plenty of remedies available to the citizens of India through various acts and through our constitution, specially under fundamental rights.It is for the consumers/citizens to invoke those clauses in their favour and first and formost thing for that is to have awareness of those remedies.

In a recent case decided by National commission on 11December 2007 in the matter of Uma Shankar Bhatt V Chairman –cum Managing director ,Punjab &Sind bank ,the question before the commission was whether a bank is liable to reimburse its account holder if the officers of the bank i.e. the manager or the cashier commits fraud and transfers the amount lying in the account to a third party’s account without proper check or authorization?Facts of the case revealed that a senior citizen deposited all his life savings amounting to Rs 15 lacs with the bank Complainant when went to the bank to make a withdrawal,he discovered transfer of all his amount in favour of third person for which he had neither issued any cheque nor given any instructions .Bank took the plea that money was transferred on the basis of letter written by the complainant to transfer the whole amount to third party .Because of the aforesaid conduct and realizing that his entire saving was lost ,the complainant suffered severe shock,depression,mental agony,anguish,severe illness and pain National commission observed that it was the duty of the bank to have suspected why it was being done .It disbursed the amount apparently without verification of the depositers signaturesand without even doubting /suspecting as to why no cheque was used as an instrument of transfer of such large amount.Apart from the negligence  of the officers which stood proved ,there was was also evidence of banks branch manager having committed forgery in conspiracy with others.Bank was directed to refund the entire amount of Rs 15 lacs with 12% interest and also 50,000/- compensation to the complainant.  

In yet another case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner V Bhavani (CP) p 563 decided on 22^nd April 2008, Supreme court has even not agreed with  the plea taken by Regional Provident Fund Commission that provident fund commission is not a service provider it being a statutary body and held that non payment of dues to the complainants[number of cases of similar nature on the similar point of law clubbed together ] under Employees Pension Schemes  amounts to deficiency in services .By becoming a member of the employees family pension scheme and contributing to the same ,one avails services rendered under section 2(1)(O) by the commission for implementing the scheme,hence is a consumer under section 2 ( 1 ) (d) of the act.This is how interest of the consumers are safe guarded under laws of the land.

But at times people are trapped due to their ignorance and courts are to take their own course of action  and  one is bound to pay for others defaults.Guarantor’s liability and liability of the surety is one such area where banks /financial institutes can recover their dues from the guarantor or surety even without exhausting their remedy available to them against the borrower.Consumers are to sign such documents with great care and after they understand the consequences thereof, held in case of Jagdish singh v State bank of Patiala and others, Decided on 27^th Feb.2008 by Punjab SCDRC in appeal no 953 of 2006 p633,CTJ.

Now coming to the question of  security ,safety and right of a citizen to live with dignity ,courts have gone long way in these areas and supreme court has delivered number of landmark judgement giving protection and security to the citizens .One very important thing done by the apex court is that monetary compensation has also been granted to the writ petitioner when found necessary for their sufferings which could be done after  long debates on the issue.Rudal Shah V State Of Bihar,(SC,1983) was the first case in which monetary compensation of Rs 30,000/- in addition to Rs 5000/- already paid as interim measure was awarded against State for keeping him under detention for over 14 years after acquittal. For the first time in the case of Maneka Gandhi V Union of India,,SC IN 1978 held that right to live is not merely confined to physical existence but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity. 

In Delhi Domestic working women ‘s forum V Union of India ,SC 1995 ,four domestic servants were subjected to indecent sexual assault by seven army personnels in a running train In this case Supreme court recommended for setting up of criminal injuries compensation board and directed that compensation to victim shall be awarded by the court .Board was also directed to take into account pain,sufferings and shock as well as loss of earning due to pregnancy and the expenses of child birth if it occurred as aresult of rape.

Supreme court also observed in the case of  D.K Basu V State of West Bengal in 1997 that grant of compensation in proceedings under Article32 or 226for established violation of the fundamental rights under Article 21  of the constitution is an exercise of the courts under public law jurisdiction for penalizing the wrongdoer and fixing a liability for the public wrong on State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protct the fundamental rights of the citizen.

Hence it is seen that citizen are well guarded under the law of the land. The need is to make them aware of their rights and remedies available to them .

 

DR PREM LATA 

MEMBER,CONSUMER FORUM

 

 

 

Previous

Next