Death by KYC: Spare a Thought for Bankers Too

The image of an old man carrying the corpse of his sister to the bank, after officials sought documentation to prove that she had died, has captivated many across India.

Social media, cartoonists and the press have lampooned the bank and its officials for their lack of empathy in what should have been handled with far greater sensitivity.

The bank has tried to provide context, explaining that the man was unable to comprehend the need for documentation when seeking to withdraw money from one person’s account to another, even if they are related.

The silver lining, if it can be called that, is that the man is now receiving support from the bank to complete the withdrawal from his deceased sister’s account.

As much as we feel for the customer, there is also a case for understanding what compels a banker to adhere strictly to the rule book, even when a degree of empathy might seem warranted.

This is not to defend the bank, the banker, the Reserve Bank of Indiaor the regulations.

Any such incident offers an opportunity to ask important questions on how financial regulations are drafted. They are often tightened with good intent, but without sufficient consideration of whether the broader population is equipped to meet these requirements. 

Fraud Realities
This is also a country where individuals have been declared dead by their own families to usurp property, often with the connivance of corrupt officials. One such instance was immortalised in the movie Jolly LLB 2, in which a man declared ‘dead’ throws a shoe at the judge, inadvertently proving he is alive when the judge files a case against him! 

When bankers ask for a death certificate, they are following norms designed to protect elderly citizens, women and other vulnerable customers from fraud, including by those close to them. These norms also protect bankers, who risk allegations of corruption or vigilance probes if they provide any leeway on documentation.

Does this mean there is no room for handholding in sensitive situations where education may be limited? Or for support where access to documentation is constrained to geography or circumstance? Clearly, there is.

Even as norms are meant to protect both customers and bankers, they are also meant to make processes simple, feasible and dependable. The purpose of standardisation is to ensure rules are understood and implemented uniformly across institutions.

This is where customer service and centricity must come into play. In moments of grief or crisis, customers seek support. Within the boundaries of regulation, banks must make every effort to educate and assist them.

Whatever the triggers behind this viral incident, it should serve as a reminder for institutions to re-emphasise empathy when dealing with customers in distress.

Every crisis is also an opportunity and institutions and regulators can use such moments to work with local authorities to create linkages that help customers access documentation more quickly.

In an era of Digital India, where speed of transactions is celebrated, we must also ask whether the benefits of digitisation are truly reaching all citizens. Is it leading to greater inclusion or exclusion for those at the bottom of the societal pyramid in terms of income, education or access?

The image of a man carrying his sister’s exhumed body to a bank will linger and rather than demonising those following the rules, this is a moment to improve systems, and to ask whether we can build a framework that is not only efficient, but also humane.