I did not expect that being a few weeks behind on a loan repayment would turn into members of my family being hounded by phone calls from strangers who had no legal business contacting them. But that is exactly what NeoGrowth Credit Pvt. Ltd.’s recovery machinery has put my family through — and when I tried to raise it directly with the company’s top leadership, I was met not with accountability, but with a block button.
The Calls My Family Never Should Have Received
According to the communications I have documented and sent formally to NeoGrowth’s Nodal Officer, a person identifying himself as Mukesh Chauhan, calling from mobile number 9654942469, contacted multiple members of my family — disclosing details of my business loan account to them in the process.
Let that sink in: people who are not parties to my loan agreement, who never signed a single document, were pulled into calls about my finances. Under the RBI’s Fair Practices Code, that is not an aggressive collection tactic — it is a direct violation. Recovery agents are not permitted to disclose a borrower’s financial information to relatives, neighbours, or anyone else not named on the loan.
Separately, I allege repeated calls from 9643029709, during which — per my own account and contemporaneous notes — abusive language and intimidation were used, both toward me and toward my family members who were also contacted from this number.
And then there is 7838076108 — the number I had already, over WhatsApp, calmly and clearly explained my situation to, specifically requesting that discussions resume only after 25 July 2026. That request was documented in writing. It was ignored. Calls and pressure continued regardless.
This is not a case of a borrower refusing to engage. I engaged. I explained. I set a reasonable, time-bound ask. It was disregarded.
What the RBI Actually Says
This isn’t a matter of opinion or a customer being “difficult.” The Reserve Bank of India’s Fair Practices Code and Master Circular on recovery agent conduct are unambiguous:
- Recovery agents cannot contact family members, relatives, or third parties to pressure a borrower or disclose loan information to them.
- Communications must be free of threats, abusive language, or intimidation.
- Once a borrower has clearly communicated their circumstances and proposed a reasonable timeline, agents are expected to respect that communication, not escalate past it.
- Loan default on an unsecured or business loan is a civil matter — not grounds for threats or coercive pressure tactics.
Every one of these lines, on my account, was crossed — not once, but repeatedly, across three different numbers and multiple family members.
I Went to the Top. I Got Blocked.
When my formal written complaint to the Nodal Officer did not produce the immediate response the situation demanded, I tried a different route: I messaged NeoGrowth’s Managing Director and CEO Mr. Arun Kumar directly on LinkedIn, laying out exactly what my family was going through.
The response wasn’t a reply. It was a block.
I want to be direct about why that matters. A formal complaint alleging harassment of family members and abusive recovery calls reached the top of the organisation — and the reaction was to cut off the channel of communication, not open one. Whatever the intent behind it, that is precisely the kind of institutional response that makes borrowers feel like escalation is punished rather than heard. For an NBFC regulated by the RBI, whose fair-practices obligations exist specifically to protect people in financial distress, that is a bad look — and arguably a worse signal about how seriously grievances are actually taken once they leave the call centre and reach leadership.
Why This Matters Beyond My Own Case
I’m not writing this only to vent about my own experience. I’m writing it because the RBI has been explicit, including in recent guidance, that banks and NBFCs are vicariously liable for the conduct of their recovery agents — outsourcing collections does not outsource accountability. When agents contact relatives, disclose account information to third parties, and use abusive language, the regulatory and legal exposure sits with the lending institution, not just the individual agent on the phone.
My formal complaint to NeoGrowth’s Nodal Officer has demanded:
- Immediate cessation of all calls to my family members and third parties.
- Withdrawal of the recovery personnel involved.
- Written confirmation of disciplinary action taken.
- A commitment that all future communication will be with me alone, and strictly within RBI guidelines.
- A response within 48 hours.
If that response doesn’t come — or doesn’t come with substance — the next stops are the RBI’s Integrated Ombudsman, a police complaint for criminal intimidation, and the Consumer Commission. Those aren’t threats. They’re the legally available remedies that exist precisely because borrowers like me are supposed to have somewhere to go when a lender’s recovery process stops looking like recovery and starts looking like harassment.
The Bigger Question
Financial stress does not strip a person — or their family — of the right to be treated with basic dignity. If NeoGrowth wants to demonstrate that its “responsible lending” positioning is more than a line on its website, the test isn’t how politely its call centre scripts read. It’s how the company responds when a customer, in writing, says: my family is being harassed, and here is the evidence.
So far, on my experience, the answer has been silence from the top and a block button. I’ll be watching — and escalating — until that changes.
This account reflects the author’s personal experience and the contents of a formal written complaint submitted to NeoGrowth’s Nodal Officer. NeoGrowth has not yet issued a substantive response at the time of writing.



