When it comes to consumer grievances, India deserves a better deal

It is not that progress has not been made over the years — more needs to be done to match the pace at which the consumer market is growing

The world is increasingly seeing India as a major consumption market. This view is based on India’s middle-class as avid consumers with sizeable spending capacity and disposable income. This is what attracts global businesses, and investors to set up shop to cater to this segment.

In such a booming consumer market, India needs adequate and speedy solutions to its consumers’ grievances. An average consumer is not aware of where to go, and whom to complain to. Even when they know, they have little confidence that complaining would address the problem. It could be a grievance about rash driving, or chain snatching, or losing money to digital fraud, or issues with poor road conditions, or hospital overbilling, or telecom issues, etc.

The common framework — the Consumer Protection Act 1986 — mandates the disposal of consumer grievance cases within 45 days. Unfortunately, at the current rate, the disposal of the pending cases itself could take decades to clear! Are you as a consumer ready to wait that long?

This is not to say that progress has not been made — it is that more needs to be done to match the pace at which the market has grown, and has the potential to grow.

Enter Ombudsman

It is into this milieu that the ombudsman enters. An ombudsman (from Swedish word ombudsmand, which means a representative, a proxy) is usually an appellate body to whom customers can escalate their complaints if a company fails to address their complaint, or address it in a satisfactory manner, within a certain timeframe. Ombudsperson usually are independent, and the decisions they take are legally valid.

One would assume that it would be in the interest of the companies to provide their customers with good service, and being responsive to complaints would attract loyal customers. Alas, if only that was the case. The sectoral regulators and businesses seem to have their grievance mechanism in their posters and events, and that one special annual day to celebrate ‘consumer grievance redressal’ rather than in their service culture.

Sadly, the regulations currently don’t even require companies to state the number of consumer complaints they have received in each financial year, and how many have been resolved, and in what timeframe.

Most of the sectoral regulators have an ombudsperson scheme, or at least a framework to resolve consumer grievance. But their ability to process and solve consumer woes in a quicker time period has been a disappointment. The processes at many of these ombudsperson schemes are often not-simple-to-follow. Many of the complaints go unheard due to technicalities and browbeating procedures.

Simplify the Process

How can an ombudsperson be known to almost all consumers?

If only regulations mandate mentioning the existence of the sectoral grievance redress mechanism and contact information in every product pack and service delivery documentation! Like the statutory warning on cigarette packs.

Imagine the increased confidence for the consumers: if each consumer, upon purchase of a product or service, gets an automated SMS or email from the sectoral regulator/ombudsperson providing a digital link to raise a complaint if required. This would simplify the process, which currently is a deterrent against filing a complaint.

The biggest influence on the ombudsperson ideology is the hope that it would solve the complaint within a fixed time period, and that one would not have to run from pillar to post for filing a complaint. Currently, in addition to the difficulty in filing a complaint, consumers also fear retribution from brands which have deep pockets, a battery of lawyers, and market clout.

Social Media to the Rescue

Given things as they stand, it is not surprising that consumers have turned to social media platforms to express their frustration about poor service. Be it on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc. people have started tagging multiple handles, especially of influential people or those in power, probably with a hope that someone will help.

Government officials are usually tagged in the hope that the grievance is brought to their attention. The Prime Minister social media handle, one assumes, would be the most tagged one for consumer grievances. It is done so in the hope that the other officials who are supposed to work on the complaint would do so at least then.

This reflects how broken the current grievance redress mechanism is, one which needs an urgent revamp. Merely having various framework and grandiose announcements won’t solve consumers’ pain.

If the Indian consumer market is to continue growing, this kernel problem needs to be addressed — now. Even otherwise, isn’t it time the Indian consumer got a better deal.

(Srinath Sridharan is a corporate advisor and author. Twitter: @ssmumbai.)

The views expressed are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.