Reserve Bank of India (RBI)’s grievance redress system, especially the much-touted integrated ombudsman scheme (IOS) scheme has come under scrutiny after two separate cases—one involving a Mumbai consumer’s locker-deposit dispute and another concerning a 79-year-old Kerala-based senior citizen’s year-long battle to claim his late wife's bank balance—revealed contradictory decisions, prolonged delays and allegations of harassment by Canara Bank officers. Information accessed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act reveals that, even as the RBI banking ombudsman formally closed one consumer complaint as 'non-appealable' with 'no deficiency in service', its own internal assessment simultaneously concluded that Canara Bank was at fault and awarded compensation. In the second case, the senior citizen alleges that Canara Bank officers retaliated against him for approaching the Ombudsman by repeatedly raising new procedural hurdles, despite earlier acknowledging that his documents were in order.
The first case concerns Mumbai resident Avinash Nunes, who filed a complaint on 29 June 2025 after Canara Bank’s Marol branch demanded a fixed-deposit lien of ₹25,000 to allot a small locker—a charge he said exceeded the Bank’s own prescribed amount of ₹18,000. Mr Nunes submitted evidence documenting the discrepancy, including Canara Bank’s earlier communication confirming the standardised policy and sought ₹1 lakh compensation for harassment.
Months later, RBI ombudsman emailed him seeking comments but without a complaint number, making it difficult for him to identify the case among multiple similar complaints he had filed. Only on 3 November 2025 did the ombudsman supply the complaint number, allowing him to respond immediately. However, merely a week later, on 10 November 2025, the ombudsman closed the complaint under Clause 16(2)(a), stating that no service deficiency had been established—offering no appeal.
The RTI response Mr Nunes filed thereafter reveals a contradictory internal reality. The ombudsman’s processing note explicitly acknowledges that the Marol branch’s demand of ₹25,000 constitutes a service deficiency, as it diverged from Canara Bank’s standardised policy of ₹18,000 for small lockers in metro branches.
It further records that Canara Bank admitted inconsistent communication across branches and issued cautionary circulars only after the complaint was raised. The internal assessment not only confirms Mr Nunes’ argument but also advises Canara Bank to pay him ₹10,000 as compensation for time lost, effort invested and mental agony caused due to the Bank’s deviation.
In a striking contradiction to Mr Nunes’ official closure, the RTI records show that the ombudsman recommended issuing an advisory to Canara Bank directing strict adherence to the standardised locker-deposit policy and explicitly advising payment of ₹10,000 compensation to Mr Nunes for 'loss of time, effort, and mental agony'.
The internal note carries the approval of the RBI banking ombudsman’s Mumbai-II office and warns that non-compliance within five days would invite stronger regulatory action.
The records also acknowledge that while Mr Nunes’ savings account was dormant due to pending re-know-your-customer (KYC) requirements, the central issue—overcharging for locker allotment—is unrelated to the KYC status and required independent assessment.
Despite this internal finding, the complaint had already been closed under a clause that offers no avenue for appeal, leaving Mr Nunes compensated on paper but with no functional route to challenge the closure or secure implementation of the advisory.
While Mr Nunes’ complaint exposes internal contradictions within the RBI ombudsman system, the second case raises even more serious allegations of harassment and retaliation. Thomas Mathew, a 79-year-old formerly chief technical adviser (elections) at the United Nation's electoral assistance department, now living in Kerala, alleges that officers of Canara Bank’s Lady Irwin College branch in Delhi delayed the transfer of his deceased wife’s savings account balance for months and subsequently targeted him for complaining to the ombudsman, which resulted in a ₹20,000 penalty for the branch.
According to his representation, the senior citizen had complied with all procedures prescribed by Canara Bank—including obtaining a legal heir certificate, submitting the death certificate, and obtaining a notarised renunciation from his sons. Despite this, the branch manager repeatedly introduced new conditions that were not part of the Bank’s own guidelines.
Mr Mathew claims the Bank initially insisted on impossible attestation requirements, then demanded affidavits, then delayed the process further even after acknowledging that all required documents are in order and assuring him that the transfer would be completed within a week. He alleges that this assurance was recorded in minutes he emailed to the Bank—minutes that were never disputed but never honoured.
After the ombudsman fined the Bank ₹20,000 for the delay, Mr Mathew says the harassment escalated. Canara Bank raised objections to the digital signature on the legal heir certificate, demanded physical signatures and even after the Tahsildar personally verified the certificate, insisted that it must be physically re-signed, which the official did out of sympathy for his situation.
When no procedural gap remained, the Bank introduced entirely new requirements, now demanding a succession certificate or court-issued letter of administration—a process that may take years. It also insisted that his sons, residing abroad, must re-sign their earlier renunciation letter in front of a Canara Bank officer, something impossible and unnecessary under the Bank’s own rules.
Mr Mathew says this shifting of goalposts, especially after he complained to the ombudsman, reveals 'a saga of revenge', meant to exhaust him so he eventually abandons his claim. He points out that even the income tax (I-T) department, based on a single bank-issued certificate showing a joint account, accepted him as legal heir and transferred over ₹5 lakh of his late wife’s tax refund—while Canara Bank continues to raise new objections every few months.
He says the ombudsman has 'silently echoed' the Bank’s later demands without examining his objections, creating the impression that the grievance-redress system 'supports the bank more than the customer'.
“My late wife kept this money in her account in the college she had worked to pay prizes and scholarships to deserving girl students in the college. If and when the money is received, it will be utilised for charity purposes only, “ Mr Mathew says.
Taken together, the two cases highlight systemic issues with the RBI’s complaint-handling framework and the conduct of certain bank branches. In the first case, the ombudsman’s closure order contradicts its own internal findings, raising questions about procedural transparency, accountability and recourse. In the second, a vulnerable senior citizen alleges harassment, policy misapplication and retaliation for approaching the Ombudsman—issues that, if left unaddressed, erode confidence in institutional grievance mechanisms.
For both complainants, the complaints may be formally 'closed', but the questions raised about fairness, procedural integrity and customer protection remain very much open.
It also raises questions about whether consumers can rely on the Ombudsman system to ensure fair outcomes when procedural gaps permit contradictory outcomes within the same complaint cycle.
Last month, while imposing costs of ₹1 lakh on Citibank for the conduct of its recovery agents who sent threatening messages to a customer and even visited his residence for payment of a disputed amount, the Delhi High Court issued a slew of directions to RBI to ensure that its banking ombudsman does not simply reject the consumer complaints in a mechanical manner.
Coming down heavily on RBI's IBO, the Delhi High Court (HC) says the ombudsman, a quasi-judicial body, is reasonably expected to pass a well-reasoned order and any empty formality deserves to be weeded out. The HC observed that orders passed by the BO in April and May 2023 were based on a complaint filed by MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Ltd on 15 April 2023. "These orders are also wretchedly inadequate, inasmuch as they do not record into writing the reasons of rejection, assailing the tenets of natural justice principles on the face of it." (
Read: Delhi HC Rebukes RBI Banking Ombudsman for Passing Orders Mechanically without Giving Reasons)
Every time we make a "deposit" in a bank, it is actually an unsecured loan to the bank. Therefore,
a banker's biggest asset is the trust that customers have in them.
Trust, once used as leverage, is impossible to rebuild.
These days, management has isolated itself in ivory towers. Control is centralised through websites.
For eg even a transaction of Re 1 in a bank has to be done at the head office.
And management isolates itself from feedback by employing 3rd party contractors.
These contractors make the website hang when a customer gives honest feedback.
Most of the times such stories are sponsored programs without having knowledge of banking frame work and guidelines which involve legal aspects also.