By continuing, you agree to LoansJagat's Credit Report Terms of Use, Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy, and authorize contact via Call, SMS, Email, or WhatsApp
Disclaimer: The information published on LoansJagat is intended for general informational and educational purposes only and should not be considered financial, legal, or investment advice. Interest rates, loan terms, statistics, and other data may change over time and may vary by lender or source. Please verify the latest information and consult a qualified financial advisor or the respective Bank/NBFC before making any financial decisions.
Subscribe Now
About the author
Arshathul Afia is a journalism graduate and fintech content writer with 4+ years of experience in digital publishing and research-led writing. She has written 200+ articles covering personal finance, lending, banking, digital payments, credit, insurance, and major financial developments in India. At LoansJagat, she focuses on simplifying complex fintech news, RBI updates, loan-related changes, policy developments, and industry trends for everyday readers. Her journalism background helps her approach stories with research, context, and clarity, while her SEO experience ensures content remains discoverable and relevant. She aims to make financial news easier to understand, practical, and useful for readers across India.
Related News
Simplify All Your Loans Into One Affordable EMI
Customers Served
Debt Consolidated
1200+ Reviews
Locations in India
Club all Loans & Credit Card Bills into Single EMI
Quick Apply Loan
Consolidate your debts into one easy EMI.
Takes less than 2 minutes. No paperwork.
10 Lakhs+
Trusted Customers
2000 Cr+
Loans Disbursed
4.7/5
Google Reviews
50+
Banks & NBFCs Offers
Other services mentioned in this article
SBI Card must pay ₹50,000 and close the account after a Delhi consumer commission found repeated requests for a cheaper card had not been resolved.
Key Highlights
Neha Chaudhary’s requests to replace the higher-fee card remained unresolved, leading to a compensation order against SBI Cards & Payment Services Limited. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-II, Delhi, questioned the company’s handling of the account: if a downgrade could not be processed, why had it not closed the card?
Chaudhary maintained that she had never used the card. She disputed the fee through emails and telephone calls before taking the complaint to the consumer commission. The resulting order requires compensation and account closure, with a separate direction on how SBI Card must handle the unpaid bill.
Chaudhary alleged that she chose SimplyCLICK, carrying an annual fee of ₹499 plus GST, but the agent completed biometric KYC for a Club Vistara card. The issued card carried an annual fee of ₹2,999 plus GST. Her later email requested SimplySAVE as the replacement.
Our reading of this credit card fee dispute is that the price difference explains only part of the complaint. Chaudhary sought a change, followed the company’s instructions and still received no resolution. The distinction is important for borrowers: requesting a downgrade and obtaining closure are different outcomes, and the commission ultimately ordered closure.
The commission asked, “Why was the card not closed if it could not be downgraded?” It noted that Chaudhary repeatedly contacted the company but was eventually told that the downgrade could not proceed, without a reason being given.
The remedy followed that finding. Along with closing the account, SBI Card was directed to prepare the bill as on 4 August 2023 if it remained unpaid. That condition preserves a billing step; the compensation award should not be described as a blanket refund of every charge.
The correspondence began after Chaudhary received the disputed statement. Her complaint developed through the following exchanges and proceedings.
Copies of the emails showed what Chaudhary had requested and the replies she received before filing the complaint. She placed these before the commission with her card statement and an affidavit supporting her account.
SBI Card’s email said its representatives could not reach Chaudhary on her registered mobile number. It asked her to receive a representative’s call or contact the helpline for OTP validation. She replied that she had called, but the requested change had not happened.
The commission recorded that SBI Card neither appeared nor rebutted her allegations after its late written statement was excluded. This was the procedural position before the commission, rather than an admission by SBI Card.
The ₹50,000 compensation awarded was below Chaudhary’s demand of ₹1,00,000. Her complaint also sought ₹15,000 to cover litigation costs.
SBI Card was given 60 days from the order date to comply. The reported default provision applies 7% interest from the order date until payment. The deadline runs from the decision, not from the publication of a news report about it.
The finding concerned SBI Card’s failure to resolve Chaudhary’s request after issuing the disputed higher-fee card. Closure and compensation address that failure; the separate billing direction governs the account calculation.
The commission found a deficiency in service after Chaudhary’s repeated requests remained unresolved and questioned why the card had not been closed.
Chaudhary said she selected SimplyCLICK at ₹499 annually plus GST but received Club Vistara at ₹2,999 annually plus GST.
The reported directions required closure, compensation and billing as of 4 August 2023 if unpaid, rather than issuing a replacement.
Chaudhary requested a downgrade, but SBI Card declined it. This case establishes the outcome of her complaint, not a general guarantee that every downgrade request will be accepted.
In Chaudhary’s case, the commission ordered closure alongside a dated billing instruction. It did not simply direct her to disregard the bill.
.png&w=3840&q=75)
