 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 190 Response to the proposal 9.1.5 Although a wide range of the responses have been received to the above proposal contained in the Consultation Paper, the most exhaustive response has been from the Institute of Insurance Surveyors and Adjusters (IISA). The principal suggestion is that "the Act should spell out only the Policy Framework. All regulatory issues should be within the purview of the Regulator. All operational and administrative issues should fall under the purview of the self-regulating Chartered Institute". Consequently, the IISA has suggested that the system of licencing of surveyors should be abolished. They would like to have a system of issuance of certificate of practice by a Chartered Institute of Insurance Surveyors and Loss Adjusters of India. The IISA suggests that where the claim is not less than Rs.20,000/-, the holding of such certificate should be mandatory before an insurer can entrust the work of survey or loss assessment to such surveyor/ loss assessor. Another important suggestion of the IISA is that there should be a provision for appointing joint surveyor/ loss assessor depending on the requirement. 9.1.6 While the Law Commission appreciates the detailed suggestions given by the IISA, it realises that the issue involves a policy decision to be taken. For instance, the decision to abolish the system of licencing and to constitute a Chartered Institute for loss assessors has to be taken at a policy level. The Law Commission does not consider such decisions to be within the scope of its present reference. Therefore, the Law Commission is not in a position to accept the suggestion of the IISA in this regard. 9.1.7 The response of the General Insurers' (Public Sector) Association of India has been for a retention of the existing provisions where the appointment of surveyors is within the domain of the insurer rather than give any further powers to the IRDA. It is suggested that the decision to settle a claim after a report is called for from a second surveyor, should be left to the GRA. The response of the General Insurance Company is that there should be no interference by the regulator after a licence is issued to a surveyor. It suggests that the IISA may also be consulted in the matter of appointment of surveyors. Likewise, United India Insurance Company also opposes a change in the provisions to give any greater role to the IRDA. 9.1.8 FICCI's suggestion is that there should be no practice of licencing of surveyors and that the IRDA should be empowered to prescribe the qualifications. It has suggested that there should be an institute of surveyors approved by the IRDA. Also, it has suggested that the monetary limit for mandating survey should done away with and that the IRDA should be empowered to prescribe the class of business and monetary limits for which survey by qualified surveyors is made mandatory.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back