FLOPSAM
Paid Rs 81,237 Delivered 11 Jul 2026 Without a working laptop 3+ months Refunded by any company Rs 0

The RBI Ombudsman complaint

Filed 5 October 2026 against ICICI Bank, about how the bank handled a chargeback for a defective product. Closed 27 October 2026: no deficiency in service, no appeal.

What the complaint said

The complaint was about the bank, not about the laptop. Five points.

  1. Wrong category, twice after correction. A dispute about defective goods was answered with a template for unauthorised transactions, about OTP, CVV and cybercrime. The error was pointed out in writing. The same template came back twice more.
  2. Reason code never disclosed. The customer asked which Visa reason code the dispute was raised under. If it was raised as fraud, an OTP authenticated payment would lose automatically.
  3. Merchant documents never shared. The customer could not answer evidence he had not seen.
  4. Pre arbitration not considered. A written rebuttal with documents, including Samsung’s own refund approval, was sent. It was not acknowledged.
  5. Closed with nothing answered. The bank declared its template reply final.

The four page statement of case filed with the complaint is on the documents page.

What the bank told the Ombudsman

On 16 October 2026 the bank replied. It said the dispute was raised on 29 June 2026. The laptop was bought on 6 July.

It said, for the first time, that the merchant had declined the chargeback on 19 August, and that the bank had then raised pre arbitration, which the merchant declined on 29 September. It denied any refund or compensation, and said its Internal Ombudsman was satisfied.

The full reply is on the emails page.

What the customer said in reply

Sent on 26 October, after the Ombudsman shared the merchant’s documents.

  1. Never shown the documents, never asked to respond. The merchant declined on 19 August and 29 September. The customer saw the documents on 26 October, after going to the regulator.
  2. The documents only prove delivery. Delivery was never disputed. Proof of delivery does not answer a dispute about a defect.
  3. The merchant admits it rejected the return. Its own screenshots show the return rejected on 16 July, inside its own return window.
  4. The merchant does not dispute the defect. Samsung’s job card of 14 July stands unanswered.
  5. The gateway letter is a template. It names the customer “Flipkart”, with email abc@flipkart.com and phone 9999999999.

The closure order

Office of the RBI Ombudsman, 27 October 2026. Paragraphs 2 to 4, quoted in full.

Office of the RBI Ombudsman
Closure of your complaint against ICICI BANK LIMITED regarding Credit Card. Ref. No. RB-IOS-N202627016020451
2. The issue raised by complainant in his complaint pertains to handling of his credit card dispute as he has paid Rs 81,237/- by his card to Flipkart for a Samsung laptop which was defective on delivery. Regarding the resolution of complaint RE has submitted that bank raised Service Request Number SR1126342479 on June 29, 2026. Further, chargeback was raised on August 4, 2026, with the TAT (Turnaround Time) of 35 days as per VISA/Master guidelines. Chargeback was declined on August 19, 2026, as per the clarification received by the merchant/merchant's bank, the dispute has been declined by the merchant. Bank request him to co-ordinate with the merchant for the refund of amount of Rs 81,237.00. In view of the above, bank is unable to accede to his request for reversal of the disputed amount or providing compensation. RE response with relevant documents were forwarded to the complainant on 26/10/2026 requesting him to revert back and the reply received on the same day was examined and duly considered at our end. No deficiency on the part of RE has been established, in view of this the complaint is treated as dealt with and is hereby closed under the clause mentioned below. Please note that the proceedings before the Ombudsman are summary in nature. 3. In view of the above, we have closed your complaint under Clause 16(2)(a) of the Reserve Bank - Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2026 (RB-IOS), which stipulates the following: "There is no deficiency in service." 4. This is issued with the approval of the RBI Ombudsman/DY Ombudsman/Reviewer. Kindly note that the complaints closed under Clause 16(2)(a) of the Scheme are non-appealable under the provisions of the RB-IOS.
The order repeats the bank’s date of 29 June 2026, a week before the purchase, without comment. It does not mention the reason code, the merchant documents being shared only after the complaint was filed, or the fraud template.

What this shows

A chargeback is a process, not a judgement on the product. The bank raised it, the merchant answered with proof of delivery, the bank raised pre arbitration, the merchant answered again. In the Ombudsman’s summary procedure, that was a completed process.

Whether a delivery receipt should end a dispute about a laptop that was defective on delivery was not examined.