Insurance Ombudsman in India, an Alternative Mechanism for Disputes Resolution: A Critical Analysis

The Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017 provide a cost-free and informal alternative for Indian policyholders. This paper investigates whether this mechanism is an adequate remedy in law. By studying the Insurance Ombudsman Rules and the statistics released by the Council for Insurance Ombudsmen for 2023–24, and by examining parliamentary records and recent High Court rulings, the paper finds four gaps in the process: the lack of a defined line between an enforceable award and a mediated recommendation, a review mechanism that pushes claimants to seek redress through the writ jurisdiction, the unresolved issue of limitation and parallel forums, and the unwieldy way in which outcomes are reported. Comparison with the Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK reveals several solutions to these problems. The paper makes recommendations regarding rule amendments as well as the introduction of an innovative model of community assistance.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Law Management & Humanities
Published
2026-11-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.63108/ijlmh.13137
Primary Topic
Dispute Resolution and Class Actions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Insurance Ombudsman in India, an Alternative Mechanism for Disputes Resolution: A Critical Analysis

Adutiya Jha, Aanya Singh
International Journal of Law Management & Humanities
Dispute Resolution and Class Actions
article

Insurance Ombudsman in India, an Alternative Mechanism for Disputes Resolution: A Critical Analysis

Adutiya Jha, Aanya Singh
article en

Abstract

The Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017 provide a cost-free and informal alternative for Indian policyholders. This paper investigates whether this mechanism is an adequate remedy in law. By studying the Insurance Ombudsman Rules and the statistics released by the Council for Insurance Ombudsmen for 2023–24, and by examining parliamentary records and recent High Court rulings, the paper finds four gaps in the process: the lack of a defined line between an enforceable award and a mediated recommendation, a review mechanism that pushes claimants to seek redress through the writ jurisdiction, the unresolved issue of limitation and parallel forums, and the unwieldy way in which outcomes are reported. Comparison with the Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK reveals several solutions to these problems. The paper makes recommendations regarding rule amendments as well as the introduction of an innovative model of community assistance.

International Journal of Law Management & HumanitiesVol. 9(V)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Dispute Resolution and Class Actions
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon