Airtel - Recharge fraud by Airtel

I had recharged with rs **** in September **** and again on *nd December after the Airtel app showed a block mentioning to recharge in advance and it was marked exclusive. It was next day that prices were about to hike. After recharge, I found that my previous benefit were written off. No where in the app nor in the block it was mentioned that previous benefits would be lapsed. If such terms and conditions had been mentioned in the same section it would have prevented me from recharging further. I need refund or benefit to be added in my current plan. How can company totally write off for plan which has been paid by customer has used it only for * months and more ** months nearly remaining. In such cases you should allow the recharge to work only if existing recharge or plan is expired or you are queuing the plan for further use or if benefits would be clubbed, After recharge I expected the benefits to be clubbed or queied but neither happened. Was this attention capturing block a trap? If I paid for something I deserve to get those benefits. Or you don't allow successive recharges if the plan is to lapse the benefits. You should compulsorily mention the terms and conditions in the place where you are letting the customer recharge. Now after contacting Airtel they are telling me that previous recharge benefit is written off because I recharged with same plan after * months. The plan of rs **** after September recharge gave ** months of benefits and I used it only for nearly * months. ** months worth data and validity got written off just because I recharged again with same plan . Either the company should not allow such recharge, or pass on the benefit or at least mention the terms and conditions while person recharges. Writing off the previous benefits and restarting same plan is simply unacceptable as I lost benefits of ** months of previous plan which I paid for.
Not Letting customer use the benefits , not mentioning terms and conditions clearly in place where recharge options are given is perfect case for deficiency in service