The Amritsar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed ICICI Bank to pay Rs 12,500 in total compensation to a doctor for deficiency in service after wrongly reporting an adverse entry on his CIBIL profile despite the full clearance of his credit card dues.
The consumer forum ordered the bank to ensure the doctor’s credit profile with Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (CIBIL) is corrected, verify that no adverse entry regarding the disputed account remains pending, and issue a no-dues certificate if it has not already done so. The award includes Rs 7,500 for mental harassment and Rs 5,000 toward litigation expenses. ICICI Bank must comply with the directions within one month, failing which an interest rate of 9 percent per annum will be levied on the compensation amount from the complaint’s filing date until its realization.
Impact On Reputation And Financial Standing
A commission bench comprising President Charanjit Singh and members Nidhi Verma and V P S Saini noted that inaccurate reporting by financial institutions directly harms a consumer’s standing. The panel observed that an erroneous adverse entry in a credit bureau report inherently causes mental agony, inconvenience, and damage to a consumer’s creditworthiness and professional reputation.
Details Of The Credit Card Dispute
The case originated from a complaint filed by a medical practitioner, represented by advocate Muskan Bhatia, who maintained a credit card with ICICI Bank. The doctor stated that the bank levied excessive interest and unannounced fees on his account. Although he made multiple requests to rectify the higher interest rates and hidden charges, the bank did not alter the billing.
To protect his professional reputation, the complainant cleared the entire sum demanded by the bank, including all disputed interest and extra charges. However, a CIBIL statement dated May 29, 2020, listed his account status as “written off/settled,” which the complainant stated damaged his social and professional standing.
Bank Response And Clearance Of CIBIL Liability
Represented by advocate Pardeep Arora, ICICI Bank argued that the initial complaint contained vague allegations lacking card numbers and specific transactional details. The bank stated that credit entries are gathered automatically by CIBIL through system generation and denied intentionally submitting false data. The bank further submitted that after the complaint was lodged, it persuaded the doctor to share his card details, subsequently rectified the entry with CIBIL, and requested the dismissal of the petition on grounds that the matter had been resolved.
CIBIL, represented by advocate S K Vyas, maintained that the forum lacked jurisdiction over its operations as a registered credit information entity and argued that it could not be held responsible for data provided by subscriber institutions.
The commission held that CIBIL operates by reflecting information supplied directly by banks and cannot independently modify records without bank confirmation. Noting that the bureau initiated verification once informed of the dispute, the panel ruled that no deliberate deficiency in service was established against CIBIL.
