SOURCE:::: “THE HINDU”…..With the introduction of so many Gs in communication sector, many consumers do not even know what facility they opt and use… they do not even think whether such advanced facility option is really needed for their limited use!!!!!!!.With the result , when they receive hefty bills , they make a hue and cry!!!!.
It is for us to be careful while opting for a new facility or atleast be smart enough to notice any new VAS is added to your mobile without your consent!!!.. PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE , HERE TOO!!!!!!!
Natarajan
Recently, a consumer was shocked when he received his monthly bill from the telecom service provider for Rs. 30,500! When he verified the bill, he was even more baffled as the monthly rental and usage charges put together were Rs. 1,100 and the charges for value added services (VAS) were Rs. 29,400. The itemised bill showed that most of it was for GPRS usage. Venki was already under an unlimited monthly plan for broadband usage, and thus could not comprehend this claim for an exorbitant sum.
When the issue was raised with the service provider, the first question that was asked was if the consumer had changed his handset lately. He said yes, he was using a new high-end mobile phone. The executive responded that the cause for the inflated bill was that 3G would have been enabled automatically resulting in regular data transfer.
How could 3G have been activated without taking his assent was the consumer’s question, to which there was no proper response from the service provider. However, it agreed to waive off the excess amount charged. TRAI’s guidelines states that any VAS should be activated only after obtaining explicit consent from the consumer. This being the case, the rationale behind the above mentioned incident is certainly questionable.
One other issue that continues to be a menace to most telecom consumers is the problem of unsolicited messages, despite registering with the National Customer Preference Register (NCPR). TRAI has spelt out stringent penalty provisions for violations by registered telemarketers.
However, service providers aver that most of the messages are from unregistered telemarketers, over which they have no control. When there is a complaint, consumers are asked to provide details — the phone numbers, the date, time and message content — and are assured that action taken would be communicated. However, we very rarely get feedback on such complaints, and the harassment continues.
This could be the way out for this issue. When there is a complaint about unwanted SMS from a particular number and the contents are provided, the service providers could warn the sender. If such messages continued to be sent from the same number, the number should be disconnected and the culprit penalised heavily.
But then, unregistered telemarketers would easily go in for another SIM card. So, when there is complaint about the same message being sent from different numbers, the service providers should share this information amongst themselves and keep track of the culprits through the ID proof submitted when the SIM card is purchased. If it were the same person, he should immediately be blacklisted and the telecom resources provided to him disconnected for a specified period along with penalty. The action taken should be widely publicised so that other unregistered telemarketers think twice before indulging in such deeds.
(The writer works with CAG, which offers free advice on consumer complaints to its members. For membership details / queries contact 2491 4358 / 2446 0387 or helpdesk@cag.org.in)
Take off with Natarajan 