Skip to main content

When a telecom giant fails the consumer: My Airtel experience

By Rajiv Shah
 
Initially, I was not considering writing this blog about why I found Airtel—one of India’s premier communication service providers—to have an outrageously poor sales and customer-service experience, at least in Ahmedabad, Gujarat’s business capital. However, the last SMS I received from Airtel regarding my request for a Wi-Fi connection in my flat in the Vejalpur area left me stunned.
The SMS, received on December 27, stated, and I quote: “Hi, as per your request, your order for Airtel Black plan has been cancelled.” This, in my view, was plainly dishonest—especially coming from a powerful company that controls nearly 33 per cent of India’s fibre network. I had never requested any cancellation.
Since late last month, I had been considering getting a Wi-Fi connection in my flat and was evaluating options among Jio, Airtel and GTPL. After comparing pricing and offers, I decided to go with Airtel, mainly because it offered a two-month plan—enough time for me to decide whether to continue or not.
I placed a request on the Airtel website, and a salesperson contacted me promptly in the first week of December. He visited my house quickly—I was impressed—and I paid ₹1,500 after receiving firm assurances that the connection would be “easily installed” and that there would be “no hurdles.”
I was further impressed when I immediately received an SMS from Airtel stating that an engineer would arrive the same afternoon to install the fibre connection. This was surprising, as the salesman had said it would take “at least 24 hours.” I adjusted my schedule accordingly and waited. Nobody turned up.
After several phone calls, I received another SMS saying an engineer would visit the next afternoon. Again, nobody came. Following repeated calls, an engineer finally arrived at around 7 pm, examined the flat’s location, and said, “The network can’t be installed.”
He cited infrastructure issues and said he would return the next morning with a wireman to assess whether fibre installation was possible. I even received an SMS confirmation. Meanwhile, I posted a complaint on X (formerly Twitter), stating that such delays were unacceptable. Airtel asked me to DM the receipt, which I did, and assured me that my “problem” would be “promptly resolved.”
The engineer returned as promised, accompanied by the wireman. After inspection, the wireman said there was no passage in the duct that could connect my flat to the main Airtel line in the housing society. I contacted the salesman and pointed out that infrastructure availability should have been assessed earlier. He said he would look into it.
After nearly an hour, the salesman returned with another person who appeared more technically knowledgeable. After assessment, this person concluded that not only wired fibre but even Airtel’s AirFiber could not be installed in my flat. I then asked for an immediate refund of the amount I had paid online. The salesman assured me it would be processed “within five days” and that I would receive an SMS confirmation.
This is where my real ordeal began.
Two days passed without any SMS. When I tried calling the salesman to check the refund status, he did not answer. Repeated attempts went unanswered. I contacted Airtel’s Ahmedabad office, only to be told to speak to the same salesman, as they were “helpless.”
Angered, I posted another message on X:
“Terrible Airtel service! Booked a new Airtel fibre connection in Ahmedabad. After frequent calls, technician assessed that the service can’t be provided in my flat. Was told I would get a refund. Despite repeated calls, no response!”
The routine reply followed:
“We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience you have faced, Rajiv. We have shared your concern with our respective team for prompt resolution. We will get back to you soon with an update via DM.”
The DM update merely said:
“We’re on it, Rajiv. Please be informed that we have highlighted your concern to the respective team to expedite the resolution. We solicit your cooperation in the interim.”
Trusting the salesman’s verbal assurance, I waited five days. Nothing happened. I then sent a detailed email complaint with all supporting documents, including the payment receipt and UPI transaction details, requesting a refund.
The response I received read:
“Thank you for reaching out to us regarding the service issue. Resolving this issue is our top priority, and our team is working diligently to address it. We appreciate your patience and understanding.”
Thereafter, I began sending DMs on X every two or three days to check the refund status. Each time, I received a standard response stating:
“We’re sorry for the delay caused in your new Airtel Wi-Fi installation. Our team is upgrading the network in your area and will contact you within 72 hours. It is our priority to bring you on board with our services.”
I received five such messages, none of which addressed the refund.
Finally, I wrote directly to the Airtel CEO. This, it appears, made a difference. I received an SMS stating that my request for a new Airtel Wi-Fi connection had been cancelled and that the refund would be processed soon. Once again, I followed up via X to ask when this would happen.
Subsequently, I received an email stating:
“This is in reference to your email regarding cancellation refund. As per our records, your order was created on 06-12-2025 and cancelled on 20-12-2025.”
It added:
“Further, the refund amount of ₹1,500 was initiated on 24-12-2025 and will be credited within 4–5 working days. Kindly check the bank account through which the payment was made. Inconvenience is deeply regretted.”
Finally, on December 26, I received my money back.
For comparison, I had also approached Jio for a fibre connection. They first sent an engineer—not a salesman—to assess feasibility. His assessment was also negative. While Jio’s pricing was less attractive—about ₹3,600 for a minimum six-month plan—no money was collected after the negative assessment.
The contrast in approach was telling.

Comments

TRENDING

From plagiarism to proxy exams: Galgotias and systemic failure in education

By Sandeep Pandey*   Shock is being expressed at Galgotias University being found presenting a Chinese-made robotic dog and a South Korean-made soccer-playing drone as its own creations at the recently held India AI Impact Summit 2026, a global event in New Delhi. Earlier, a UGC-listed journal had published a paper from the university titled “Corona Virus Killed by Sound Vibrations Produced by Thali or Ghanti: A Potential Hypothesis,” which became the subject of widespread ridicule. Following the robotic dog controversy coming to light, the university has withdrawn the paper. These incidents are symptoms of deeper problems afflicting the Indian education system in general. Galgotias merely bit off more than it could chew.

Covishield controversy: How India ignored a warning voice during the pandemic

Dr Amitav Banerjee, MD *  It is a matter of pride for us that a person of Indian origin, presently Director of National Institute of Health, USA, is poised to take over one of the most powerful roles in public health. Professor Jay Bhattacharya, an Indian origin physician and a health economist, from Stanford University, USA, will be assuming the appointment of acting head of the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USA. Bhattacharya would be leading two apex institutions in the field of public health which not only shape American health policies but act as bellwether globally.

The 'glass cliff' at Galgotias: How a university’s AI crisis became a gendered blame game

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan*  “She was not aware of the technical origins of the product and in her enthusiasm of being on camera, gave factually incorrect information.” These were the words used in the official press release by Galgotias University following the controversy at the AI Impact Summit in Delhi. The statement came across as defensive, petty, and deeply insensitive.

Farewell to Saleem Samad: A life devoted to fearless journalism

By Nava Thakuria*  Heartbreaking news arrived from Dhaka as the vibrant city lost one of its most active and committed citizens with the passing of journalist, author and progressive Bangladeshi national Saleem Samad. A gentleman who always had issues to discuss with anyone, anywhere and at any time, he passed away on 22 February 2026 while undergoing cancer treatment at Dhaka Medical College Hospital. He was 74. 

Growth without justice: The politics of wealth and the economics of hunger

By Vikas Meshram*  In modern history, few periods have displayed such a grotesque and contradictory picture of wealth as the present. On one side, a handful of individuals accumulate in a single year more wealth than the annual income of entire nations. On the other, nearly every fourth person in the world goes to bed hungry or half-fed.

From ancient wisdom to modern nationhood: The Indian story

By Syed Osman Sher  South of the Himalayas lies a triangular stretch of land, spreading about 2,000 miles in each direction—a world of rare magic. It has fired the imagination of wanderers, settlers, raiders, traders, conquerors, and colonizers. They entered this country bringing with them new ethnicities, cultures, customs, religions, and languages.

Thali, COVID and academic credibility: All about the 2020 'pseudoscientific' Galgotias paper

By Jag Jivan*    The first page image of the paper "Corona Virus Killed by Sound Vibrations Produced by Thali or Ghanti: A Potential Hypothesis" published in the Journal of Molecular Pharmaceuticals and Regulatory Affairs , Vol. 2, Issue 2 (2020), has gone viral on social media in the wake of the controversy surrounding a Chinese robot presented by the Galgotias University as its original product at the just-concluded AI summit in Delhi . The resurfacing of the 2020 publication, authored by  Dharmendra Kumar , Galgotias University, has reignited debate over academic standards and scientific credibility.

'Serious violation of international law': US pressure on Mexico to stop oil shipments to Cuba

By Vijay Prashad   In January 2026, US President Donald Trump declared Cuba to be an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US security—a designation that allows the United States government to use sweeping economic restrictions traditionally reserved for national security adversaries. The US blockade against Cuba began in the 1960s, right after the Cuban Revolution of 1959 but has tightened over the years. Without any mandate from the United Nations Security Council—which permits sanctions under strict conditions—the United States has operated an illegal, unilateral blockade that tries to force countries from around the world to stop doing basic commerce with Cuba. The new restrictions focus on oil. The United States government has threatened tariffs and sanctions on any country that sells or transports oil to Cuba.

Conversion laws and national identity: A Jesuit response response to the Hindutva narrative

By Rajiv Shah  A recent book, " Luminous Footprints: The Christian Impact on India ", authored by two Jesuit scholars, Dr. Lancy Lobo and Dr. Denzil Fernandes , seeks to counter the current dominant narrative on Indian Christians , which equates evangelisation with conversion, and education, health and the social services provided by Christians as meant to lure -- even force -- vulnerable sections into Christianity.