The insurance Ombudsman is an alternative dispute resolution forum set up to resolve disputes relating to insurance contracts. Established in 2000, under the Public Grievance Redressal Rules of 1998, this Forum has served as a simple and free dispute resolution mechanism for insurance customers. This article examines the role, scope, and effectiveness of this forum and makes suggestions for a more effective role in resolving insurance disputes.
The institution of the Insurance Ombudsman was initially created by the Public Grievances Redressal Rules 1998, notified by the Central Government in the exercise of its powers under Section 114(1) of the Insurance Act. These rules were later replaced by the Insurance Ombudsman Rules in 2017 with some amendments in 2018 and 2021[1].
The Council appoints the Insurance Ombudsman on the basis of the recommendations of a Selection Committee consisting of representatives of IRDAI, the Central Government, and consumer interests. The tenure of Lokpal is for a period of three years. At present, there are 17 Lokpal offices spread across the country, whose jurisdiction includes all the states and union territories of India[3].
Scope of authority:
The Insurance Ombudsman receives and looks into complaints of lack of required performance by the insurer, its agents, intermediaries, and brokers for reasons such as delayed claim settlement, claim rejection, and insurance contract disputes[4]. Only those complaints which are initially raised with the insurers concerned shall be placed before the Ombudsman.
Unlike other forums such as consumer courts, the Ombudsman Regulations do not prescribe pecuniary jurisdiction. Clause 17(3) of the Rules provides that the Ombudsman cannot award compensation exceeding Rs. 30 Lakhs[5]. This amount compares well with the Bank Ombudsman's limit of Rs. 2 Lakhs.
However, the Banking Ombudsman Scheme clarifies by virtue of Section 12(5) that the compensation that the Banking Ombudsman may award shall be independent of the amount involved in the dispute[6]. In the absence of any such express provision in the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, there is a lack of clarity as to whether the Ombudsman can entertain disputes above Rs. 30 lakhs, limiting the award to Rs. 30 lakhs, or consider only those disputes within this limit[7].
The Guidelines for Redressal of Grievances by Insurance Companies, issued by IRDAI, define "complaint/complaint" as "any communication[8]". Who express dissatisfaction about the action or lack of action regarding the level of service/lack of service of an insurer and/or an intermediary, or request for corrective action". When an insured person withdraws from the activities of the insurer and feels aggrieved, he should first approach the insurer for redressal.
The insurer in question has to settle the matter fairly and reasonably. In addition, every insurer should have a designated Grievance Officer at the senior management level. Senior Management shall mean the Director General or Compliance Officer of the Company[10].
In the field of insurance, the institution of the Insurance Ombudsman was created by the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998 (RPG Rules). These rules apply to all insurance companies engaged in the general and life insurance business.
At present, there are 17 Insurance Ombudsman Centres at various places in India:
Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Chandigarh, Chennai, Delhi, Ernakulam, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kolkata, Lucknow, Mumbai, Noida, Patna, and Pune. Some ombudsmen have jurisdiction over more than one state and some states have two ombudsman centres.
"The whole purpose of appointing Lokpal is to check abuse of power by statutory bodies and to ensure that disputes are resolved." The Delhi High Court has also said that the institution of Insurance Ombudsman is an independent institution and Quasi-judicial forum for the redressal of grievances of any individual against an insurer.
When an insurer does not satisfy the complaints of an aggrieved person, the aggrieved person himself or through his legal heir may approach the Ombudsman for the insured with a written complaint addressed to the Ombudsman within whose jurisdiction the branch of the insurer or The office is located.
In this regard, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also held that the Insurance Ombudsman is inter alia empowered to receive and consider complaints regarding delays/disputes relating to the settlement of claims. By virtue of Rule 14 of the said Regulation, the Ombudsman for the Insured Person may adopt any procedure other than the procedure mentioned in Rule 13 for attending to the claim. In accordance with the principles of natural justice, you must deal with a complaint fairly and equitably.
The Ombudsman is the final authority with regard to the merits of a complaint and the origin of its consideration or not.
There are different points of view on this issue. Some courts have ruled that the Ombudsman cannot take evidence because he is not a court, but other courts have held that he can take evidence.
As discussed above, Rule 14 empowers the Ombudsman to take evidence of any kind for fair and just disposal of the complaint. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has considered the scope of powers under Rule 14, where the Court observed that the Rule does not exclude the power of the Ombudsman to take evidence of any kind. In fact, for a fair and just consideration of the case, the Ombudsman should have the power to take evidence in appropriate cases.
In a particular case, when it is necessary to separate oral evidence from documentary evidence for arriving at a fair and just conclusion, the Ombudsman has the power to take such evidence. Further, in another case, the Hon'ble Court held that the Insurance Ombudsman is an authority before the people to produce evidence in support of their claims.
The Insurance Ombudsman shall endeavour to settle the claim through his arbitration and when the complaint is resolved, shall make such recommendations as he deems fit in the circumstances of the case. A copy of the recommendation will be sent to both parties. When the claimant accepts the written recommendation clearly stating that the settlement reached is fully acceptable to him, the Ombudsman shall request the insurer to comply with the terms of the recommendations immediately but not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of the recommendation.
When the claim is not resolved by mutual agreement, the Ombudsman shall, within three months of receipt of the claim, issue a written and reasoned decision expressing the amount awarded to the claimant, which he considers appropriate in the light of the facts. and the circumstances of the claim. Accordingly, the parties will be informed in writing of the award and the claimant will be required to accept the award. If the claimant does not indicate acceptance, the award cannot be enforced by the insurance company. In addition to the above, the Ombudsman is also authorized to pay ex-gratia.
Conclusion:
Insurance instruments, on the one hand, are considered to be an effective tool for distributing the economic burden caused by any future uncertainty; On the other hand, it is capable of making significant contributions and boosting the country's economy, as well as having the potential to generate employment opportunities. In order to protect the interests of policyholders, IRDAI has launched initiatives to monitor complaints against insurers, etc.
Policyholders have access to various avenues for the redressal of their grievances, but the existing Insurance Ombudsman system has been found to be more effective and faster in redressing grievances as compared to other modes of grievance redressal mechanism.