Which of the following complaints is outside the scope of the RBI Ombudsman?

The correct answer is B, 1995. The Reserve Bank of India notified the first Banking Ombudsman Scheme in 1995, exercising its powers under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, to give bank customers a free and quick forum outside the courts. Option A is wrong because 1991 is the year of the economic reforms and of the Narasimham Committee on the financial system, not of the ombudsman. Option C is a strong distractor: the scheme was recast as the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006, which ran, with a 2017 amendment, until it was merged into the integrated scheme, but 2006 was a revision and not the introduction. Option D is wrong because 2021 is the year of the Reserve Bank - Integrated Ombudsman Scheme. Read whether the question asks for the first scheme or the present one.

The correct answer is D, 2021. The Reserve Bank - Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, or RB-IOS, was launched on 12 November 2021 and merged the Banking Ombudsman Scheme of 2006, the Ombudsman Scheme for Non-Banking Financial Companies of 2018 and the Ombudsman Scheme for Digital Transactions of 2019 into a single scheme on the principle of one nation, one ombudsman. Option A is wrong because 2017 is the year the 2006 scheme was amended to cover mis-selling and mobile banking. Option B is wrong because 2018 is the year of the separate scheme for non-banking financial companies. Option C is wrong because 2019 is the year of the scheme for digital transactions. The three years in the options are all real dates in the story, which is why the sequence is worth memorising.

The correct answer is C, Chandigarh. The integrated scheme is jurisdiction neutral, so a complaint no longer has to be sent to the ombudsman office of a particular region; all complaints, whether filed online, by email or on paper, are received and processed at a single Centralised Receipt and Processing Centre set up at Chandigarh, which then assigns them. Option A is wrong because Mumbai is the head office of the Reserve Bank of India and of its Consumer Education and Protection Department, but not the receipt centre. Option B is wrong because New Delhi houses the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which is a different forum altogether. Option D is wrong because Hyderabad has no such role, though the Reserve Bank has a regional office and a training establishment in the city.

The correct answer is B, rupees 1 lakh. The scheme separates two kinds of award. For the loss the complainant actually suffered, the Ombudsman may award the actual loss or rupees 20 lakh, whichever is lower. Over and above that, the Ombudsman may award up to rupees 1 lakh for loss of the complainant's time, the expenses he incurred and the harassment and mental anguish he suffered. Option A is wrong because rupees 10,000 was the limit in some earlier consumer compensation rules and not in this scheme. Option C is wrong because rupees 5 lakh is the deposit insurance cover given by the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation, a quite separate figure. Option D is the limit for the actual loss itself, which is why the two numbers must be kept apart.

The correct answer is B, the Executive Director in charge of the Consumer Education and Protection Department of the Reserve Bank of India. Either the complainant or the regulated entity may appeal to this officer within thirty days of receiving the Award, and a regulated entity that failed to appoint a Principal Nodal Officer cannot appeal at all. Option A is wrong because the Governor does not sit in appeal over individual awards; the appellate function is assigned to a named Executive Director. Option C is wrong because the Department of Financial Services is part of the Ministry of Finance and has no role in deciding these appeals. Option D is wrong because the National Commission belongs to the separate consumer protection route; a customer chooses one route, and the two do not sit one above the other.