<p>The RBI’s Integrated Ombudsman Scheme received over 13.3 lakh consumer complaints in FY 2024-2025, a 13.5% increase from the previous year. These complaints were mainly related to digital banking, credit card, and cyber-fraud cases. As a result, the Supreme Court classified banking negligence and delayed refunds as a “deficiency of service.” Thousands of victims continue to face protracted delays and procedural hurdles, despite the availability of digital grievance portals. </p><p>The National Consumer Helpline received more than 18,000 complaints in just two and a half months of 2025, resulting in reimbursements exceeding Rs 8 crore. India’s consumer protection laws have evolved from a disjointed system into a rights-based, digitally enabled regime. However, this change remains incomplete. National Consumer Day, observed on December 24, offers an opportunity to reflect on the adequacy of consumer empowerment in a $4-trillion, digitally saturated economy. </p>.<p>Before 1986, consumer protection in India was fragmented across statutes such as the Indian Contract Act, the Sale of Goods Act, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act -- none of which recognised consumers as rights-bearing citizens. Redress mechanisms were complex and inaccessible, awareness was limited beyond urban centres, and despite widespread unfair trade practices, fewer than 5,000 consumer disputes were filed annually. This reflected systemic under-recognition and weak institutional response.</p>.<p>The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, marked a democratic shift in India’s market governance by granting consumers legal recognition and enforceable rights. It codified six core consumer rights and established a three-tier redress mechanism which, despite early capacity constraints and modest disposal rates, expanded access to justice through its informal and accessible design. Post-1991 liberalisation enlarged and diversified markets, reshaping consumer behaviour through branded goods, digital platforms, and private services. </p><p>Reflecting this shift, 1.72 lakh complaints were registered with the National Consumer Helpline in 2015–2016, while disposal rates exceeded 85% by 2018 following awareness initiatives such as Jago Grahak Jago. These gains, however, remained uneven and skewed towards urban areas. The Consumer Protection Act (2019) further modernised the framework by strengthening e-commerce regulation, product liability, and enforcement through the Central Consumer Protection Authority, mediation mechanisms, revised jurisdictional thresholds, and digital platforms such as e-Daakhil.</p>.<p>These reforms have produced measurable outcomes. By late 2025, the National Consumer Helpline had received more than 1.42 million grievances. In July 2025, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recorded a disposal rate of 122%, with several states exceeding complete disposal. Tamil Nadu led with a disposal rate of 277%. Over two lakh users, including non-resident Indians, accessed digital grievance platforms, and more than 2.5 lakh cases were filed online. AI-enabled helplines and upgraded consumer awareness applications have further simplified access to redress.</p>.<p>These headline numbers, however, mask deeper structural weaknesses. Consumer awareness has not kept pace with rising grievance reporting: over 90% of consumers remain unaware of complaint-filing procedures, and fewer than 11% know the rights guaranteed under the Consumer Protection Act. This knowledge gap disproportionately affects the uneducated and economically disadvantaged, turning grievance tracking into reactive governance without genuine empowerment.</p>.<p>Institutional capacity remains equally strained. By mid-2025, consumer redressal bodies faced 518 member vacancies, with 218 of 685 district commissions operating without a president. Such deficits increase pendency, delay justice, and risk eroding public trust. While digitalisation can improve efficiency, it cannot substitute adjudicators; reform without parallel investments in staffing and governance risks hollowing out the system. Consumer vulnerability has further intensified in digital markets; only 16% of citizens are aware of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, despite its recognition of key data rights.</p>.<p>Corporate compliance remains a major enforcement challenge. In October 2025, the FSSAI prohibited beverages from using the term “ORS” unless they met Who standards, a move widely welcomed as pro-consumer. However, the Delhi High Court’s interim order permitting the sale of existing stock diluted its immediate impact, revealing persistent tensions between regulatory authority and corporate power. Consumer protection requires sustained investment in institutional capacity, aggressive consumer literacy embedded within formal education, and consistent enforcement. </p>.<p><em>(Pavithra is an independent researcher; Mythri is a student and Maya is an assistant professor at the department of economics, Christ Deemed to be University, Bengaluru)</em></p><p><em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>
<p>The RBI’s Integrated Ombudsman Scheme received over 13.3 lakh consumer complaints in FY 2024-2025, a 13.5% increase from the previous year. These complaints were mainly related to digital banking, credit card, and cyber-fraud cases. As a result, the Supreme Court classified banking negligence and delayed refunds as a “deficiency of service.” Thousands of victims continue to face protracted delays and procedural hurdles, despite the availability of digital grievance portals. </p><p>The National Consumer Helpline received more than 18,000 complaints in just two and a half months of 2025, resulting in reimbursements exceeding Rs 8 crore. India’s consumer protection laws have evolved from a disjointed system into a rights-based, digitally enabled regime. However, this change remains incomplete. National Consumer Day, observed on December 24, offers an opportunity to reflect on the adequacy of consumer empowerment in a $4-trillion, digitally saturated economy. </p>.<p>Before 1986, consumer protection in India was fragmented across statutes such as the Indian Contract Act, the Sale of Goods Act, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act -- none of which recognised consumers as rights-bearing citizens. Redress mechanisms were complex and inaccessible, awareness was limited beyond urban centres, and despite widespread unfair trade practices, fewer than 5,000 consumer disputes were filed annually. This reflected systemic under-recognition and weak institutional response.</p>.<p>The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, marked a democratic shift in India’s market governance by granting consumers legal recognition and enforceable rights. It codified six core consumer rights and established a three-tier redress mechanism which, despite early capacity constraints and modest disposal rates, expanded access to justice through its informal and accessible design. Post-1991 liberalisation enlarged and diversified markets, reshaping consumer behaviour through branded goods, digital platforms, and private services. </p><p>Reflecting this shift, 1.72 lakh complaints were registered with the National Consumer Helpline in 2015–2016, while disposal rates exceeded 85% by 2018 following awareness initiatives such as Jago Grahak Jago. These gains, however, remained uneven and skewed towards urban areas. The Consumer Protection Act (2019) further modernised the framework by strengthening e-commerce regulation, product liability, and enforcement through the Central Consumer Protection Authority, mediation mechanisms, revised jurisdictional thresholds, and digital platforms such as e-Daakhil.</p>.<p>These reforms have produced measurable outcomes. By late 2025, the National Consumer Helpline had received more than 1.42 million grievances. In July 2025, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recorded a disposal rate of 122%, with several states exceeding complete disposal. Tamil Nadu led with a disposal rate of 277%. Over two lakh users, including non-resident Indians, accessed digital grievance platforms, and more than 2.5 lakh cases were filed online. AI-enabled helplines and upgraded consumer awareness applications have further simplified access to redress.</p>.<p>These headline numbers, however, mask deeper structural weaknesses. Consumer awareness has not kept pace with rising grievance reporting: over 90% of consumers remain unaware of complaint-filing procedures, and fewer than 11% know the rights guaranteed under the Consumer Protection Act. This knowledge gap disproportionately affects the uneducated and economically disadvantaged, turning grievance tracking into reactive governance without genuine empowerment.</p>.<p>Institutional capacity remains equally strained. By mid-2025, consumer redressal bodies faced 518 member vacancies, with 218 of 685 district commissions operating without a president. Such deficits increase pendency, delay justice, and risk eroding public trust. While digitalisation can improve efficiency, it cannot substitute adjudicators; reform without parallel investments in staffing and governance risks hollowing out the system. Consumer vulnerability has further intensified in digital markets; only 16% of citizens are aware of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, despite its recognition of key data rights.</p>.<p>Corporate compliance remains a major enforcement challenge. In October 2025, the FSSAI prohibited beverages from using the term “ORS” unless they met Who standards, a move widely welcomed as pro-consumer. However, the Delhi High Court’s interim order permitting the sale of existing stock diluted its immediate impact, revealing persistent tensions between regulatory authority and corporate power. Consumer protection requires sustained investment in institutional capacity, aggressive consumer literacy embedded within formal education, and consistent enforcement. </p>.<p><em>(Pavithra is an independent researcher; Mythri is a student and Maya is an assistant professor at the department of economics, Christ Deemed to be University, Bengaluru)</em></p><p><em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>
