Fighting your Insurer alone: The Ombudsman experience??
You file a claim. The insurer rejects it. You believe the rejection is wrong. What happens next?
For most Indian policyholders, the answer involves navigating a system they were never trained for, filling lengthy complaint forms, compiling technical documentation, and then sitting across from a large insurance company’s representatives to argue a case they can barely articulate in the language the system demands. All of this, alone.
That is the reality of India’s insurance dispute resolution framework. And a recent ruling by the Karnataka High Court has placed it under a spotlight.
The Insurance Ombudsman
Before courts, before consumer forums, there is the Insurance Ombudsman, a free, accessible, and relatively fast mechanism for resolving disputes between policyholders and insurers. Established under the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017, the system currently operates through 18 offices across India, covering disputes on claim rejections, premium refunds, policy terms disputes, and mis-selling, among others.
How effective is the Ombudsman?
In FY26 alone, Insurance Ombudsmen decided 41,055 grievances, of which 79% were resolved in favour of policyholders, a striking success rate that speaks to the genuine merit of many complaints reaching the system. IRDAI Chairman Ajay Seth, addressing an orientation programme for ombudsmen in May 2026, described the institution as one that “promises to provide free, speedy and accessible grievance redressal to policyholders.”
The caseload, however, tells a more sobering story. Health insurance complaints have doubled over six years, now accounting for 75-80% of all grievances filed. The CIO Annual Report 2024-25 shows that Star Health alone accounted for 12,186 complaints during the year, with Care Health and Niva Bupa not far behind. On the life insurance side, mis-selling complaints rose 14.3% in FY25 to 26,667, a category that reflects not fraud but a fundamental failure of transparency at the point of sale.
The imbalance
What the complaint statistics do not show is how many policyholders give up before or during the process.
Under the current framework, policyholders are generally required to represent themselves before the ombudsman. Family members may assist in limited ways, but professional representatives, lawyers, insurance agents, brokers, are typically barred from participating. The intent behind this restriction was sound: keep the process fast, informal, and free of the procedural delays that make court litigation so expensive.
In practice, however, this is an uneven playing field that tilts sharply against the policyholder.
Insurance companies arriving at ombudsman hearings have access to in-house legal teams, claims specialists, underwriting experts, and professionals who navigate policy language every day. The policyholder on the other side of the table has read their policy document perhaps once, possibly in a language or technical register they found difficult to follow. They are being asked to make arguments against sophisticated institutional adversaries, without any professional assistance.
Many grievances are not caused by fraud or deliberate wrongdoing, but by lack of clarity at the time of purchase. Policyholders depend entirely on agents and rarely read the 20–30 page policy document. When a dispute arises over terms like “active line of treatment,” “sub-limits,” or “pre-existing condition disclosure,” most policyholders are not in a position to argue the technicalities effectively.
Sri M.V. Narasimha Prasad vs Office of the Insurance Ombudsman
In Sri M.V. Narasimha Prasad vs Office of the Insurance Ombudsman (Karnataka), the court ruled that denying legal representation during the adjudicatory stage of ombudsman proceedings violates the principles of natural justice.
The case arose when a policyholder, disputing the rejection of a medical insurance claim, was refused permission to engage a lawyer during hearings. The court held that once proceedings move beyond mediation into the formal adjudicatory stage under the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017, a complainant cannot be denied the right to have an advocate present.
This acknowledges that the absence of professional representation, while designed to preserve efficiency, effectively denies many policyholders a fair hearing.
Speed vs. Fairness
India’s 18 ombudsman offices are already operating under significant pressure. In many ombudsman centres, hearings take six months or more, despite a mandatory three-month deadline. Experts believe that lawyers may bring the culture of traditional civil litigation with them, which could dilute the very purpose of the Ombudsman arrangement.
This is not a hypothetical concern. Insurance ombudsmen were specifically designed to be faster and cheaper than courts, the very qualities that make them accessible to ordinary policyholders in the first place. Introducing formal legal representation without expanding the system’s capacity could push this in the wrong direction, both in terms of legal costs and timelines.
A middle path?
The most thoughtful proposals emerging from this debate are not about choosing between fairness and efficiency, but about finding a model that delivers both.
What policyholders need are professionals who help them prepare their case and understand their rights without replacing them at the hearing table.
They don’t need a lawyer in the room, rather they need the knowledge and preparation to walk into that room on equal terms.
If you have a dispute with your insurer, the ombudsman remains one of the most powerful tools available to you, free, relatively fast, and with a 79% resolution rate in policyholders’ favour.
Some facts:
- Complaints can be filed at cioins.co.in or at any of the 18 ombudsman offices across India
- The ombudsman can handle disputes up to ₹50 lakh in insured value
- You must approach the ombudsman within one year of the insurer’s final decision
The system is not perfect and that imperfection is now under judicial scrutiny which might yield an improvement in the dispute resolution system which ultimately benefits everyone. But until then, with the support of a trusted insurance intermediary (like insurancepe) to help you navigate the process, the ombudsman remains your most accessible path to resolution.
This blog post is brought to you by the minds at insurancepe!
Got questions or doubts about anyone insurance?
Need advice or help understanding your insurance needs?
Want the best bang for your buck when buying insurance?
We got you!
Reach out to us at:
Whatsapp/Phone: 89779 18030
E-mail: contact@insurancepe.com
Visit us at www.insurancepe.com
