Ezaki’s statement, Bazar Insurance and Bima.com regarding the decision of the Competition Council and the recent positions of Central Insurance

Hamshahri wrote: This issued statement is as follows:

At the beginning of last week, news about the decision of the Competition Council regarding the unimpeded implementation of the switch and the rejection of lawsuits by knowledge-based startups active in the insurance industry was published and covered in the media. In the following, the Honorable Deputy Director General of Central Insurance announced on his news channel that the judgment of conviction of the startups was issued and false claims were also attributed to them. Following these two issues, he sent a letter to the managing directors of the insurance companies, requesting to take executive measures to activate the switch, and the respected CEO of Central Insurance also emphasized the same points by appearing on the radio.

What has happened so far has ignored the background of more than a year of numerous expert meetings of startups with the managers of different levels of the central insurance and the agreements made in the field of amending the relevant regulations; A point that the honorable head of central insurance emphasized in his television interview. Putting all these comments and decisions together shows polyphony and the application of personal preferences. A procedure that is expected to be avoided by the supervisory body and to take into account its regulatory and law-abiding dignity.

On the other hand, in the published text, the term “primitive vote” is clearly mentioned. In the legal literature, a preliminary ruling means “uncertainty”. The decision issued by the judicial authorities in the initial hearing of the case. The right to protest and appeal is reserved for the plaintiffs, and it loses its legal value as soon as it is protested. After consulting with legal experts after the initial vote, our reading was that, contrary to what the supervisory body cites, our technical objections to the launch of the switch have been approved by the Competition Council, and we do not consider many parts of this vote to be against our wishes, and in general We found it reasonable and acceptable. Therefore, out of respect for the preliminaryness of the decision, we refrained from publishing its content in the media, and we have postponed any action or comment until the final decision is issued and after the appeal stage. However, in the current situation and with the insistence of the supervisory body to refer to the “primitive vote”, we consider it necessary to point out a few technical points in this regard:

1. The issue was raised in the Competition Council by Azaki, Bazar Insurance and Dotcom Insurance, and Central Insurance played the role of the defendant in this case. As a result, the interpretation of issuing a sentence of conviction is incorrect. The legal status of the responsible persons requires that in the official forums, the choice of phrases that can have a legal burden or be suspicious should be avoided.

2. As we mentioned, in the preliminary vote of the council, many of our points have been approved. For example, the possibility of concluding a direct sales contract and establishing commercial and financial interactions with insurance companies by online brokers has been clearly recognized and its legality has been emphasized.

3. Regarding the management of the insurance policy issuance by Switch, the text of the ruling pointed out that the Central Insurance rejected such an issue, and did not consider our complaint, and at the same time, the broker’s freedom of action in choosing the issuing unit and the impossibility of coercion in this regard. has been emphasized. In other words, the Central Insurance has denied any entry of the switch into the issuing area in any form, and the verdict has been issued on this basis. In this regard, it is expected from the respected supervisory body to discuss and issue executive instructions approved by the board of directors in line with the defenses that have been contested in the council and the words of the honorable chairman in the first line program of the Khabar network denying any entry of the switch. Shani had given permission to correct it so that any doubts and ambiguities in this regard are resolved.

4. In the case of tenure and monopoly, the Honorable Competition Council has ruled out these two cases considering that the switch has not yet been implemented. As we have already mentioned, if the insurance switch has not entered the business space or is not entrusted to a company in the exclusive form of its implementation, its existence will not hinder innovation and knowledge-based activity in the insurance industry.

5. One of our basic concerns has been the closure of the one-time suspension without legal documentation; The procedure that the former central insurance had taken on this and had caused serious damage to knowledge-based companies in this field and hundreds of elites active in these companies. It is interesting that the text of the ruling of the Competition Council emphasizes the need to stop this procedure and create a multi-layered, reasoned, and non-repulsive mechanism to deal with possible violations.

By re-emphasizing our usual position of recognizing the right of the supervisory body to apply fair and non-discriminatory supervision to the entire sales network, we expect the interactive and expert process with online brokers to continue in practice and avoid any hasty and arbitrary actions. to be