Rony Ghodke
New member
- Bank Name
- HDFC Bank
- Customer Care Number
- 18001600
- Loss Amount
- 1800000
- Ratings
- Opposite Party Address
- HDFC Bank Pune
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNE
IN THE MATTER OF:
Complainant:
Mr. Rony Ghodke
283, Neela, Bishop Loyyed Colony
Near Makasare Health Club
Savedi, Ahilyanagar
Pune, Maharashtra – 411001
Email: ronyghodke@yahoo.co.in
VERSUS
Opposite Party:
HDFC Bank Ltd.
(Through Branch / Registered Office)
COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019
FOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE, NEGLIGENCE, DATA PRIVACY BREACH AND MENTAL HARASSMENT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. Parties
- The Complainant is a consumer of banking services of the Opposite Party.
- The Opposite Party is a banking company providing financial and tele-calling related services.
2. Jurisdiction
This Hon’ble Commission has jurisdiction because:
- Cause of action arose in Pune
- Complainant resides within jurisdiction
- Banking services were availed within jurisdiction
(Forum reference: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Pune)
3. Facts of the Case
- The complainant started receiving unsolicited calls claiming association with the bank.
- One call was later confirmed as made by authorised bank official.
- Other suspicious calls were received creating fear of data leak / misuse.
- The complainant raised complaint with bank and later with regulator i.e.
Reserve Bank of India - During complaint handling process:
- Bank complaint officials verbally admitted internal lapse
- Complainant was pressured to withdraw complaint
- Written reply submitted to regulator contradicted verbal admission
- RBI later closed complaint relying mainly on bank written submission.
- The complainant suffered:
- Severe mental stress
- Fear of financial fraud
- Loss of trust
- Continuous anxiety due to data privacy risk
4. Deficiency in Service
Opposite Party is guilty of:
- Failure to protect customer data
- Unauthorised / improper tele-calling control
- Failure to maintain internal communication consistency
- Pressurising consumer to withdraw complaint
- Causing mental harassment
5. Unfair Trade Practice
Opposite Party:
- Misrepresented facts in written response
- Suppressed internal admission of error
- Attempted to avoid regulatory scrutiny
6. Cause of Action
Cause of action arose when:
- Unauthorised / suspicious calls were received
- My old and existing Personal loan details were with third party.
- Bank admitted mistake on call but denied officially
- Complainant was forced to withdraw complaint
- Regulator closed case based on incomplete facts
Cause of action is continuing.
7. Evidence Relied Upon
The complainant relies on:
- Call recordings with bank officials
- Complaint filed with bank
- Complaint filed with RBI CMS
- RBI closure communication
- Call logs
- Email communications
8. Reliefs Sought
The Complainant humbly prays that this Hon’ble Commission may:
A. Compensation
Direct Opposite Party to pay:
- ₹18,00,000 towards mental harassment and stress
- Even though it was not lost but this was big threat to me and if indeed amount was stolen by spammer would bank had waived off my outstanding loan that day?
B. Direction Orders
Direct Opposite Party to:
- Issue written apology
- Strengthen customer data protection
- Ensure no further unauthorised tele-calling
C. Any Other Relief
Pass any other order deemed fit.
9. Limitation
Complaint is filed within limitation period.
10. Declaration
Matter is not pending in any other court (except regulatory complaint earlier).
RBI closed under Clause 16(2)(a) of the Scheme are non-appealable under the provisions of the RB-IOS without considering my reply and evidences
11. Prayer
In view of above, it is prayed that complaint be allowed.
12- Evidence at
All details – Google Drive
drive.google.com
Date:
Place: Pune
Complainant
Rony Ghodke
