The Banking Mohtasib's report for the year 2005, released the other day, provides a measure of the operational snags that continue to dog the banking sector which should otherwise be a model of trouble-free service delivery and operational efficiency.
According to the break-up provided by Mohtasib Azhar Hamid at a press briefing, out of 594 formal complaints received by his office against various banks, only 95 were "granted", ie decided in favour of the complainants, while 154 complaints were rejected and 130 were "declined." Put in plain words, this makes the ratio of redress less than 20 percent, which means that the system is overwhelmingly loaded against the banking clientele.
Further, an amount of Rs 14.711 million was paid to the complainants against an aggregate claim of Rs 22.233 million during the period under review. According to the figures provided by Azhar Hamid, 215 complaints were pending as of December 31, 2005, and over 650 fresh formal and 200 informal complaints against various banks were received in the first six months of the current year. This brings the total backlog at the Mohtasib's office to some 1065 cases - not a flattering picture by any standard.
The Mohtasib entertains two types of complaints, ie informal and formal, with the former being walk-in, e-mail or telephone complaints, while the latter category comprises written complaints requiring a formal handling. Informal complaints are usually sorted out by the Mohtasib through a personal approach to the concerned bank, and he has been able to secure satisfactory results in most of the cases.
During the scrutiny of correspondence between the banks and the complainants, the Mohtasib found that most of the disputes stemmed from lack of a sales and service culture at most of the banks. Interestingly, most of the complaints related to ledger fees and the minimum balance requirement, primarily from low income account holders.
Although the Mohtasib's (ombudsman's) role in addressing public complaints is recognised the world over, the institution has failed to play an effective role in Pakistan largely because of a number of factors of purely local nature. A question often put to the ombudsmen is whether the redress offered by them is sufficiently understood by the ordinary people. The question is quite relevant, as the public at large is generally ignorant of the functioning and role of the institution.
Obviously, there is a need to publicise the ombudsman's role through print and electronic media. It would also be appropriate to ensure that the office is adequately responsive to the people's wishes and needs. Resort to low key, but regular, publicity is essential to achieve this target. The basic function of the institution is to ensure that citizens are not victimised by bureaucracy or other state functionaries.
The purpose of investigations undertaken by ombudsman is not only the redress of individual complaints, but also prevention of future ones. Therefore, an ombudsman should be well equipped to make suggestions for improving performance, and for better delivery of service to the citizens in the light of experience gained by him while investigation public grievances. In fact, the institution is a mechanism by which the state should provide free service of an independent investigator by looking into citizens' complaints and making suggestions for remedial action.
All these functions make it absolutely essential for the Mohtasib to enjoy absolute operational independence. Often enough, the Banking Ombudsman avoids providing specific information on the identity of the bank or that of the aggrieved party, to protect their right to privacy. The law needs to be changed to impart greater transparency to a vital exercise.
Secondly, publishing the report after one year makes the whole thing degenerate into a futile ritual as far as the aggrieved party is concerned. Instead of churning out annual reports, the Ombudsman's Office should go in for quarterly or even monthly reports to build up pressure on erring bureaucracy. Thirdly, the institution of Mohtasib in Pakistan needs to be revitalised to make it an effective and efficient instrument of redress for the common man against excesses of an overbearing bureaucracy.