Author: yazdi

customercareinfoo.com

yazdi1 Comment

Have you tried finding the phone no. of Ola Cabs from their website? Or even the support nos. for Amazon.in?  Difficult?

Well, customercareinfoo.com is there to help you. This is a simple website for those in India who find it difficult to contact their service providers on phone. Listings include Telecom Companies, Broadband Service Providers, Banks, DTH, Broadband, Cabs and also E-Commerce companies. Most of these companies make it difficult to connect to them over phone and this website gives you the direct telephone nos. to their support centers in major cities.

A real boon to the harassed consumer

http://customercareinfoo.com/

CMO fined for delaying info sought under RTI

yazdiLeave a comment

Information Officer fined ₹25,000 for not providing details of grievances filed on govt. portal to former CIC

Mumbai: Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’s claim of bringing transparency to the administration received a setback, with the State Information Commissioner (SIC) imposing a fine of ₹25,000 on a Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) staff member for not providing information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act within the time period stipulated for it.

The fine pertains to information sought under RTI by former Central Information Commissioner (CIC) Shailesh Gandhi on November 13, 2015, on the number of grievances filed and redressed on the State government portal, and a copy of these grievances on a CD. “This started a unique passing-the-parcel game,” Mr. Gandhi said.

The government’s General Administration Department (GAD) said it didn’t have the information and forwarded the query to the CMO, which sent it back to the GAD on December 4. On January2, the GAD forwarded the query to the Technical Directorate, saying the portal was developed with the latter’s co-operation. On April 2, 2016, five months after he filed the RTI application, Mr. Gandhi received a reply from the CMO informing him that 9,889 complaints were received between May 1, 2015 and October 31, 2015, and 9,460 of these have been resolved.

‘Portal a facade’

Mr. Gandhi said, “This indicated that the grievance portal is perhaps just a façade, since nobody seemed to know who is dealing with it. The PIO in the CMO gave part-information and claimed the grievances were given in confidence by a foreign government. Grievances are ‘secret’ secrets. Then, the reason for not giving detailed information was put down to intrusion on the privacy of the complainants.” He then filed a second appeal to the SIC.

In its order on November 3, 2017, two years after the application was first filed, SIC Ajit Kumar Jain imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on the CMO’s Public Information Officer (PIO) for the delay in providing information within the stipulated time frame.

During the proceedings, the PIO claimed the CM’s Officer on Special Duty (OSD) Kaustubh Dhavase was looking after the online portal Aaple Sarkar and it was him who had asked her to transfer the application to GAD. The SIC. however, observed that the file had no notings supporting the claim.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/cmo-fined-for-delaying-info-sought-under-rti/article20405487.ece

National Pension Scheme – increase in age of joining

yazdiLeave a comment

National Pension System- Age for Joining 18 Years to 65 years
The Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) on 1st November,2017 has raised the maximum age of joining National Pension System (NPS) for the private sector citizens to 65 yrs from the existing 60 yrs. Now any Indian citizen, resident or nonresident, between the age of 60 to 65 yrs, can also join NPS and continue up to the age of 70 yrs in NPS. With this increase of joining age, the subscribers who are willing to join NPS at the later stage of life will be able to avail the benefits of NPS. This initiative will allow a larger segment of the society particularly senior citizens to reap the benefit of NPS and plan for their regular income.

What is NPS?
NPS is a voluntary, defined contribution retirement savings scheme It has been designed to enable systemic savings during the subscriber’s working life. It is an attempt towards finding a sustainable solution to provide adequate retirement income to every citizen of India. All citizens above the age of 18 yrs (up to age of 65yrs) are now eligible

How it works?
Under NPS an individual savings is pooled in pension funds_ These funds are invested by PFRDA regulated professional fund managers as per the approved guidelines in diversified portfolios comprising of Government bonds,bills,corporate debentures and shares. These contributions would grow and accumulate over the years depending on the returns earned on investment made. Besides, under provisions of Income-Tax, an individual making voluntary, contributions under NPS would get an additional benefit up to Rs 50, 000 under section 😯 CCD ( 1B) which would be over and above the ceding limit of Rs 1, 50,000 .prescribed under Section 8OCCE.

Now the increase in joining age will provide the options to the subscribers who are at the fag end of their employment and expecting lump sum amount at the time of retirement but willing to defer their retirement planning for future, may open NPS account and contribute the lump sum corpus to NPS for better fund management by professional fund managers to fetch better returns and plan for the regular income after some time. The following are applicable clauses :

  1.  The subscriber joining NPS beyond the age of 60 yrs will have the same choice of the pension fund as well as the investment choice as is available under the scheme for subscribers joining before the age of 60 yrs.
  2. The subscriber joining NPS after the age of 60 yrs will have an option of normal exit from NPS after completion of 3 yrs. in the scheme In this case, the subscriber will be required to utilize at least 10% of the corpus for purchase of Annuity and the remaining amount can be withdrawn m lump sum
  3. In case of such subscriber willing to exit from NPS before completion of 3 yrs in the NPS, he/she will be allowed to do so but in such case the subscriber will have to utilize at least 8O% of the corpus for purchase of Annuity and the remaining can be withdrawn in lump sum. In case of subsscriber’s death the entire corpus with be paid to the nominee.

Supreme Court asks banks, telecom companies not to create panic among customers on Aadhaar linking

yazdiLeave a comment
The Supreme Court sought the government’s response on four petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act and linking of bank accounts and mobile numbers with the 12-digit biometric identification number.
A bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, however, said that banks and mobile service providers must mention the deadlines – December 31 and February 6 – in SMSess sent to customers on linking their accounts to the Aadhaar numbers.
The apex court, however, pulled up banks and mobile telephone companies for creating panic by sending customers messages saying their accounts will be deactivated if they don’t link them to Aadhaar.
“I don’t want to say (so) but I also get messages,” said Justice Sikri, referring to the sometimes umpteen-a-day text messages threatening deactivation for not linking one’s Aadhaar to one’s bank account and mobile phone number.
The top court asked these institutions to avoid scaring people in this manner, while it was hearing a plea from social activists to restrain the Centre from linking Aadhaar to bank accounts and mobile phone numbers until a Constitution bench decides its validity.

Insurer must reimburse diabetes patient cost of glucometer test strips under mediclaim

yazdi1 Comment
Diabetics, especially those who are insulin dependent, have to monitor their blood sugar before every shot of insulin, to determine its correct dosage.This requires a glucometer and test strips, which are quite costly. Can the insured recover the cost under a mediclaim policy?
Case Study: Purvi Kamlesh Shah and her daughter were covered under a mediclaim policy issued by New India Assurance. The policy was first taken in 2005 and then renewed without any break. However, while renewing the policy with continuity, a fresh proposal form had been obtain in 2008.

During the tenure of the renewed policy from March 13, 2010 to March 12, 2011, Purvi had to be hospitalized on July 13, 2010 due to fluctuating blood glucose levels. After she was discharged on July 16, 2010, she lodged two claims, one for the hospitalization expenses of Rs 55,409 and the other of Rs 7,680 towards medicines. The insurer’s TPA, MD India Healthcare Services settled the claims at Rs 47,931 and Rs 3,680 respectively. The deductions were in respect of expenses incurred on purchase of glucometer strips to check the sugar levels. The reason for disallowance was that these were considered as “nonmedical expenses“, and so were not payable under the policy .

Purvi protested against this disallowance, but New India’s Grievance Cell failed to respond to her representation. She filed a complaint before the South Mumbai Forum through the Consumers Welfare Association and sought a direction to reimburse these expenses along with interest and also claimed compensation and costs.

The TPA as well at the insurer contested the case and claimed that the amount had been correctly computed. They claimed that Purvi was not entitled to dispute the amount after having accepted the claim in full and final satisfaction.

The forum observed that the policy conditions had been changed, so a fresh proposal had been taken in 2008. So the new terms under the revised policy would be applicable, which provided for limiting the claim on the basis of the room category. The forum concluded that there was no deficiency in service and dismissed the complaint. Purvi challenged the order, but her appeal was dismissed by the Maharashtra State Commission. Purvi then questioned the orders in revision. The National Commission noted that various clauses of the policy providing for certain exclusions had been inserted in the Mediclaim Policy (2007). The Commission observed that it was beyond comprehension how any claim for medicines could vary with the room category opted for, as medicines treatment would be the same regardless of the room category .

The Commission pointed out that glucometer strips are essential for a diabetic to monitor blood glucose levels and adopt a medical regime to prevent the consequences of elevated or declined blood sugar levels. So it would be wrong to consider the expense on the test to be nonmedical expenses. The deduction of Rs 9,350 on this pretext was held to be wrong.

The National Commission’s bench comprising of justice D K Jain, along with M Shreesha, held the TPA and the insurance company jointly liable to pay the cost of the test strips amounting to Rs 9,350 with interest at 9% from the date of filing of the complaint. Six weeks time was given for compliance of the order. In addition, costs of Rs10,000 were awarded to Consumers Welfare Association for espousing the cause of the consumer.

(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt. of India’s National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His email is jehangir.gai.columnist@outlook.in)

Jehangir B Gai

ePaper, The Times of India (Bombay), Oct 30 2017, Page 7 :
http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31804&articlexml=CONSUMER-AS-KING-Insurer-must-reimburse-diabetes-patient-30102017007008 

ASCI bans 114 ads, including Airtel, Amazon, Haier, Dove, Fair & Lovely, Complan, and Kelloggs in August 2017

yazdiLeave a comment

The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has banned as many as 114 advertisements out of 193 complaints it received across segments during August 2017.
Out of 114 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 51 belonged to the Healthcare category, 31 to the Education category, followed by 17 in the Food & Beverages category, five in the Personal Care category, and 10 advertisements from other categories, the self-regulatory industry body said in a statement.
ASCI said it processed complaints against advertisements from general public, industry as well as from the Department of Consumer Affairs’ Grievances Against Misleading Advertisements (GAMA) Portal. Out of 93 advertisements, complaints against 52 advertisements were upheld.
The self-regulatory industry body also picked up 100 advertisement through its suo moto surveillance of print and TV media via National Advertisement Monitoring Services (NAMS) project. Out of the 100 advertisements, total of 62 advertisements were considered to be misleading. Of these 32 advertisements were from Healthcare, 26 belonged to the Education category, two from Personal Care category and two from Food and Beverage category, ASCI said.
The banned ads are from prominent companies like Bharti Airtel Ltd, Amazon.com Inc (Parachute Advanced Coconut Hair Oil, Dabur India Ltd (Dabur Odomos), Haier Appliances India Pvt Ltd (Haier refrigerator), Dainik Bhaskar Group (Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper), Hindustan Unilever Ltd (Dove Hair fall Shampoo and Fair & Lovely anti-marks treatment), Heinz India Ltd (Complan), Kelloggs India Pvt Ltd (Kelloggs Special K), among others, they range from FMCGs to autos, personal accessories to alcohol, and education to media.
Click Here for the details and the full story

Bank Aadhaar linking: RBI never issued any order, reveals RTI

yazdi3 Comments
Even as banks are on an overdrive to push customers to link their Aadhaar numbers to bank accounts on the threat of suspending accounts, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has told us that it has never issued any such directions. This was in response to a Right to Information (RTI) Act application filed by me. The RBI’s emphatic RTI response makes it clear that the decision is entirely that of the central government.
The RBI’s response says, “The Government has issued a Gazette Notification GSR 538(E) dated 1 June 2017 regarding Prevention of Money laundering (Maintenance of Records) Second Amendment Rules, 2017, inter-alia, making furnishing of Aadhaar (for those individuals who are eligible to be enrolled for Aadhaar) and permanent number (PAN) mandatory for opening a bank account. It may be noted that Reserve Bank has not yet issued instruction in this regard”.
Responding to a specific query on providing copy of the file along with file notings regarding mandatory linking of Aadhaar number with bank accounts, the Reserve Bank stated it “has not issued any instruction so far regarding mandatory liking of Aadhaar number with bank accounts.”
When explicitly asked if RBI had taken permission from the Supreme Court for mandatory linking of bank accounts with Aadhaar number, especially when the apex court had restricted its usage for six schemes, the Reserve Bank stated that is has not filed any petition before the SC.”
Replies from RBI clearly show that it is the Narendra Modi-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, which is frightening and coercing people into linking bank accounts with Aadhaar, under the pretext of preventing money laundering. This reasoning is quite bizarre because it seems to treat every bank customer as money launderer and criminal involved in money laundering, unless they link their Aadhaar number with bank account.
Experts have questioned the legal validity of this action and even moved the Supreme Court alleging contempt of its orders. The SC has restricted usage of Aadhaar to six schemes, where the government is providing some benefits or subsidy to individuals.
The Gazette Notification (GSR 538(E)) is also in contravention with the orders passed by five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court as well as Aadhaar Act 2016. In its order on 15 October 2015, the apex court had said:
“After hearing the learned Attorney General for India and other learned senior counsels, we are of the view that in paragraph 3 of the Order dated 11 August 2015, if we add, apart from the other two Schemes, namely, PDS Scheme and the LPG Distribution Scheme, the Schemes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), National Social Assistance Programme (Old Age Pensions, Widow Pensions, Disability Pensions) Prime Minister’s Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) and Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) for the present, it would not dilute earlier order passed by this Court. Therefore, we now include the aforesaid Schemes apart from the other two Schemes that this Court has permitted in its earlier order dated 11 August 2015. We impress upon the Union of India that it shall strictly follow all the earlier orders passed by this Court commencing from 23 September 2013. We will also make it clear that the Aadhaar card Scheme is purely voluntary and it cannot be made mandatory till the matter is finally decided by this Court one way or the other.”
Earlier, the RBI itself had raised serious concerns on Aadhaar in terms of terror financing and money laundering before reluctantly agreeing to the use of the UID in 2011.
The Gazette Notification issued by Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance, for mandatory linking of bank accounts and Aadhaar number is in contravention of the Aadhaar Act. Especially, Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act states furnishing of Aadhaar to establish identity for receipt of subsidy, benefit or service for which expenditure is incurred from Consolidated Fund of India.
An individual bank customer, in most cases, uses own money to open or operate the account and not from the Consolidated Fund of India. Also there are a large number of taxpayers, who are not even eligible to receive any subsidy or benefits from any Central Ministry or State Government. Yet, they too are forced to link their self-financed bank account with Aadhaar number.
One circular (No 23111/Gen/2017/Legal-UIDAI dated 15 September 2016) issued by Ajay Bhushan Pandey, Chief Executive of UIDAI about Section 7 says the Central Ministries or State Governments, who wants to use Aadhaar should issue a notification stating the service, benefits or subsidies from the Consolidated Fund of India, which require the beneficiary’s Aadhaar authentication or furnishing proof of Aadhaar. (See image below).
Linking a bank account with an Aadhaar number has no advantage either to the bank or the customer. This is because the customer’s PAN number, which has been issued by the Income Tax Department, is already linked to majority bank accounts. The PAN number actually provides much more information than the Aadhaar number and is linked with all financial instruments of the banks’ customers.
In addition, banks are mandated to strictly follow know-your-customer (KYC) procedure for all its customers. For KYC, the RBI considers passport, driving licence, PAN card, Voter’s ID card issued by the Election Commission of India, job card issued by NREGA duly signed by an officer of the State Government, and letter issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) containing details of name, address and Aadhaar number as six officially valid documents (OVDs). Explaining the OVDs, RBI says, customers, at their option, can submit one of the six OVDs for proof of identity and proof of address.
What is more serious in this mandatory linkage business is the Government thinking and treatment to every bank customer as money launderer without Aadhaar. That too when the Government machinery has several tools at their disposable to identify any bank account that is used for money laundering purpose.
One such tool used by the Income Tax Department is procuring statement of financial transaction or reportable account (FTRA), previously called as Annual Information Return (AIR). Under FTRA, banks had to furnish information on cash deposits or cash withdrawals (including through bearer’s cheque) aggregating to Rs50,000 or more in a financial year, in or from one or more current account of a person. Additionally, post offices, NBFCs, companies, mutual funds, registrars or sub-registrars, Regional Transport Officers (RTOs), District Collectors and stock exchanges also have to submit high value transactions to the I-T Department.
If the government has all tools and capability to identity money laundering taking place in bank accounts, why then it is forcing each and every account holder to link Aadhaar, which is illegal as it contravenes the Supreme Court orders.
One Dr Kalyani Menon Sen had already filed a petition in the Supreme Court against mandatory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile numbers, says a report from The Hindu.
The petition challenges Rule 2(b) of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Second Amendment Rules, 2017 for mandatory submission of Aadhaar number for individual clients, companies, partnership firms and trusts for opening of bank accounts, maintaining existing bank accounts, making financial transactions of and above Rs50,000 and crediting foreign remittance into ‘small accounts’.
The petition says the Government’s move to link bank accounts and mobile numbers with Aadhaar number violates fundamental Right to Privacy and equates citizens, including the elderly, women and students, with money launders.
The apex court is scheduled to hear several linked cases on Aadhaar in November. Hope it considers this forceful linking of bank account with Aadhaar number as well.