|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IT'S implementation may be flawed, but the consumer justice system that we have in the country is one of the best in the world. No attempt should be made to dilute the law or take away the powers of consumer courts under it. This is with particular reference to the Law Commission’s report on the amendments to the Insurance Act, which is now being examined by a committee of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India. (IRDA). One of the major recommendations of the Law Commission pertains to the creation of a full-fledged grievance redress mechanism. It suggests that the present system of having insurance Ombudsmen in major metropolises should be replaced by the Grievance Redressal Authorities (GRA) constituted under the Insurance Act itself. Thus, they become statutory authorities exercising statutory functions. At present, the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998, framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 114 (1) of the Insurance Act governs the functioning of the ombudsmen. The Law Commission recommends that the GRAs be multi-member bodies comprising one judicial member and two technical members. The powers and jurisdiction of the GRAs should include the powers and functions presently being performed by the Ombudsmen. The commission also prescribes an Insurance Appellate Tribunal on the lines of the one under the SEBI Act, to hear appeals against the decisions of the GRAs. The commission has also suggested that the IRDA should appoint adjudicating officers to inquire into and adjudicate over the violations of the act, rules and regulations by insurers, insurance intermediaries and insurance agents, and levy penalties as provided in the Act. And the Appellate Tribunal will also hear appeals against the decisions of the adjudicating officers. One can appreciate the anxiety of the Law Commission in so far as`A0providing a good system of grievance redressal for insurance policy holders are concerned. But one fails to understand why that should mean taking away the right of the consumer to go to the consumer court for insurance-related complaints. Why should the consumer not exercise her or his choice in so far as the grievance redressal machinery is concerned? The adjudication of complaints before the consumer courts may not be speedy, but what is the guarantee that the redressal before the GRAs would be faster? Let us also not forget that unlike the present-day ombudsmen, the proposed GRAs will also resolve disputes between insurers and the intermediaries, in addition to the grievances between the insured and the insurers. Besides, unlike the Ombudsmen or even the GRAs, which will be`A0established in major cities, consumer courts are located in every district in the country and they are therefore far more accessible to consumers. There is no logic behind
this recommendation that only GRAs deal with insurance cases and that
insurance cases be excluded from the ambit of the consumer courts. The
GRAs can provide redress to all policyholders, including commercial
establishments, while the consumer courts deal with only individual
consumer complaints. Consumers should have the right to choose between
the two redressal agencies and they should not be denied that. |
