RPR LEGAL NEXUS

03/02/2026

NCDRC Upholds Surveyor’s Fire Loss Assessment, Orders 9% Interest for Delay in Claim Settlement When a fire insurance claim is settled late, the dispute is often not only about the amount, but also about delay, paperwork, and whether the surveyor’s report can be challenged. In a significant deci...

03/02/2026

NCDRC Upholds Surveyor's Assessment, Directs New India Assurance To Pay 9% Interest For Delayed Fire Claim Settlement

When a fire insurance claim is settled late, the dispute is often not only about the amount, but also about delay, paperwork, and whether the surveyor’s report can be challenged. In a significant decision, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi partly allowed a complaint against New India Assurance Co. Ltd., upholding the surveyor’s loss assessment, but directing the insurer to pay interest and costs for delayed settlement.

A surveyor report usually stands unless you prove specific errors with evidence, but delay beyond the permitted timeline can still attract interest and costs.

Case

The complainant, M.K. Aggarwal Hosiery (P) Ltd., had fire insurance cover under a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy and a Floater Fire Policy from New India Assurance. A major fire occurred on the night of 26/27 April 2009, damaging stock, machinery and structures. The complainant claimed about ₹8.08 crore. The insurer’s surveyor assessed the loss at about ₹5.50 crore after applying depreciation, salvage and under-insurance, and the insurer paid about ₹5.49 crore (after deductions) on submission of an unconditional discharge voucher.

What the complainant argued

The complainant alleged:

there was unreasonable delay in settlement, causing serious financial burden,
the surveyor’s assessment was far lower than actual loss, and
the discharge voucher was signed under pressure due to financial compulsion.
What the insurer argued

The insurer maintained that:

the claim was settled strictly on the surveyor’s detailed report,
delays were attributable to documents being provided in parts and reinstatement not being done, and
the discharge voucher was voluntarily signed in full and final settlement.

What the NCDRC held

Discharge voucher is not an automatic bar, but coercion must be proved The Commission noted that signing a discharge voucher does not automatically prevent a consumer complaint. However, in this case, the complainant failed to establish coercion with convincing material, and the delay in approaching the forum weakened that claim.
Surveyor’s assessment was upheld because specific flaws were not demonstrated The Commission found the survey report to be reasoned and methodical. It noted that the complainant did not specifically challenge the calculations with supporting evidence strong enough to dislodge the survey findings.
Delay in settlement led to interest and costs Even while upholding the assessed loss amount, the Commission held the insurer liable for delay beyond one month from receipt of the survey report and directed:
9% simple interest on ₹5,49,45,964 for the period 16.10.2010 to 15.06.2011, and
₹50,000 as litigation cost, payable within two months (failing which interest would rise to 12%).
Why this matters for policyholders and businesses

This decision is practically important for fire and property insurance claims because it separates two issues:

quantification (surveyor report): if you want more than the assessed amount, you must challenge the report using records, calculations and proof, not general statements.
delay (interest and costs): even if the principal is paid, the insurer can still be directed to pay interest for unjustified delay.
Also, regulatory rules emphasise time discipline. IRDAI’s Protection of Policyholders’ Interests Regulations state that on receipt of the survey report, an insurer should offer settlement within 30 days (or reject with reasons within 30 days).

how to strengthen a fire insurance claim

If you want your claim to survive scrutiny (and to challenge deductions like under-insurance or depreciation), keep these ready:

policy schedule, sum insured, basis of indemnity, add-ons and exclusions
stock records / inventory system outputs / purchase and sales registers
audited statements and bank stock statements (if maintained)
fire brigade and police confirmation reports, photos/videos, incident timeline
complete claim submission log: what was submitted, when, and to whom
surveyor communications and document requests
proof of delays: dates of survey report receipt and settlement offer dates (important for interest).
FAQ

Q1. Can I challenge a fire insurance surveyor report in consumer court? Yes, but you must prove specific errors, missing data, wrong methodology, or unsupported deductions with documents and calculations.

Q2. If I signed a discharge voucher, can I still file a consumer complaint? Sometimes. A discharge voucher may not automatically bar a complaint, but you must prove coercion or legally valid grounds to reopen settlement.

Q3. Does delay in fire insurance settlement attract interest? Yes. Consumer fora can award interest for proven delay even when the main amount is paid.

Q4. What did the NCDRC award in this case? The NCDRC upheld the assessed claim amount but ordered 9% simple interest for the delay period and ₹50,000 costs, with higher interest on default.

Q5. What is the IRDAI timeline after a survey report is received? IRDAI rules state the insurer should offer settlement within 30 days of receiving the survey report (or reject with reasons within 30 days).

Q6. What is under-insurance and why does it reduce payout? Under-insurance generally means the sum insured is lower than the actual value at risk; policies often apply proportionate reduction as per the contract terms.

Q7. What documents matter most in a fire claim dispute? Policy schedule, stock/inventory records, audited statements, incident reports, photos, correspondence, surveyor requests, and a full submission timeline.

Q8. Can I claim costs and compensation in addition to the claim amount? Consumer fora may award costs and interest where deficiency such as delay is proved, depending on pleadings and facts

Disclaimer: This article is for general legal awareness and does not constitute legal advice. Outcomes depend on facts, documents and policy terms.

.

NCDRC Upholds Surveyor’s Fire Loss Assessment, Orders 9% Interest for Delay in Claim Settlement When a fire insurance claim is settled late, the dispute is often not only about the amount, but also about delay, paperwork, and whether the surveyor’s report can be challenged. In a significant deci...

29/01/2026

NCDRC Dismisses Complaint Against Religare Health Insurance Over Repudiation of Aviation Training Accident Claim.....

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed two consumer complaints filed against Religare Health Insurance (now Care Health Insurance), holding that aviation (pilot) training was expressly excluded under the policy, and therefore no deficiency in service could be attributed to the insurer.

The Bench comprising AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member, and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member, reaffirmed the principle that insurance contracts must be interpreted strictly according to their terms, especially when exclusions are clear and unambiguous.

Background of the Dispute...

The complainants, Joydeep Banerjee and his father Sanjoy Kumar Banerjee, had purchased a Student Explore Super insurance policy from Religare Health Insurance Company Ltd., with coverage of USD 3,00,000, along with an Adventure Sports Accidental Death (ADD) cover in connection with Joydeep’s pilot training.

During flight training in Miami, Joydeep Banerjee suffered multiple fractures and serious injuries following an aircraft accident caused by adverse weather conditions. A claim was submitted through the intermediary; however, the insurer repudiated the claim, citing a specific exclusion for aviation or pilot training under the policy.

Aggrieved, the complainants initially approached the Calcutta High Court by way of a writ petition, which was later withdrawn. They subsequently filed consumer complaints before the NCDRC.

A connected complaint by Mr. Ponkumar, another trainee injured in the same aviation accident during pilot training, was also heard along with the lead case.

Stand of the Insurer....

Religare Health Insurance contended that:
The policy explicitly excluded injuries arising from aviation or professional pilot training

The ADD cover was limited to hazardous or adventure sports, not professional aviation training

A 15-day Free Look Period was provided, during which the policy could have been cancelled if the terms were unacceptable
There was no misrepresentation or suppression of material facts, and the policy was issued after full disclosure
Accordingly, the insurer argued that repudiation was strictly in line with the policy conditions.

Key Observations of the Commission..

The NCDRC held that:
Aviation training was expressly excluded under the policy, leaving no scope for coverage
The ADD cover could not override Clause 5.33, which specifically excluded aviation training
There was no deficiency in service, as repudiation was lawful and contractually justified
Relying on Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Samayanallur Primary Agricultural Co-op Bank, the Commission reiterated that:
Insurance contracts must be construed strictly according to their language, and courts cannot rewrite or dilute policy terms on equitable considerations.
The Commission also noted that the complainants failed to exercise the Free Look Period, during which any dissatisfaction with policy terms could have been addressed by cancelling the policy.

Final Decision..

Finding no deficiency of service and no illegality in repudiation, the NCDRC dismissed both complaints, holding that the insurer had acted strictly in accordance with the policy conditions.
Why This Judgment Is Important

This decision reinforces that:
Clear exclusion clauses are legally enforceable
Consumer fora will not grant relief contrary to explicit policy terms
Professional aviation training is treated distinctly from adventure or recreational sports
The Free Look Period has real legal consequences for policyholders

Questions & Answers ...

Why did the NCDRC dismiss the complaint against the insurer?

Because the policy clearly excluded coverage for aviation or pilot training, and the accident occurred during such training. Repudiation was therefore lawful.

Does an Adventure Sports cover include pilot training accidents?

No. Adventure Sports cover applies to recreational or hazardous sports, not to professional pilot or aviation training.

Can repudiation of an insurance claim amount to deficiency in service?

Only if repudiation is contrary to policy terms or law. When exclusions are clear and correctly applied, repudiation does not constitute deficiency.

What is the importance of the Free Look Period in insurance policies?

The Free Look Period allows policyholders to review and cancel the policy if dissatisfied. Failure to use this period weakens later legal challenges
Can consumer courts rewrite insurance policy exclusions?

No. Courts and consumer fora must interpret insurance contracts strictly as written, without adding or removing terms.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed two consumer complaints filed against Religare Health Insurance (now Care Health Insurance), holding that aviation (pilot) training was expressly excluded under the policy, and therefore no deficiency in service could be attri

29/01/2026

This article explains how the Chhattisgarh High Court invalidated a medical negligence inquiry after a hospital allegedly operated on the wrong knee, highlighting why statutory procedure matters in healthcare investigations.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has delivered a significant ruling reinforcing procedural safeguards in medical negligence cases, granting relief to a patient who alleged that a hospital operated on the wrong knee and later conducted an inquiry through an illegally constituted committee. The Court held

17/01/2026

The Kerala High Court recently held that a brand ambassador will not be liable for a brand's unfair trade practice or deficiency in service unless a direct link is established between him and the consumer's transaction. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.

17/01/2026

Brand Ambassador Not Liable For Unfair Trade Practices Or Deficient Service Unless Directly Linked To Transaction With Consumer: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court recently held that a brand ambassador will not be liable for a brand's unfair trade practice or deficiency in service unless a direct link is established between him and the consumer's transaction.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. however clarified that an action may lie against a brand ambassador/endorser under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act for false or misleading advertisements.
As per Section 21, the Central Authority may impose a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on an endorse if there is a false or misleading advertisement. One of the clauses specifically provide that endorser shall not be liable to pay the penalty if he has exercised due diligence to verify the veracity of the claims made in the advertisement regarding the product or service endorsed.
The Court was considering a plea by actor Mohanlal, who challenged the orders passed by the District and State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions rejecting his challenge to maintainability against a complaint filed by persons, who availed the services of Manappuram Finance.
The Court referred to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and observed:
“ in relation to deficiency of service or unfair trade practices are concerned, the liability can be imposed upon an endorser, only in a case in which, a direct link has been established between the person who is availing the service and the persons who are impleaded as the opposite parties in the complaint, as service providers or suppliers of equipments.”
The complainants had pledged their gold ornaments at Catholic Syrian Bank for an interest at 15% per annum. Subsequently, this loan was taken over by the Manager of Manappuram Finance by promising a lower interest rate of 12% as endorsed by its brand ambassador Mohanlal in various advertisements.
However, when they approached the Manager of Manappuram to close the loan and release their gold, a higher interest rate was demanded. At this time, they preferred the consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. They sought refund of excess interest collected and additionally, Rs. 25 lakhs as compensation. They arrayed the actor as an opposite party, claiming that they were also attracted by the offer because of the said endorsements made by him.
In his written version before the district commission, the actor submitted that he did not have any direct relation and cannot be held responsible for deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. The question of maintainability of the complaint against him as brand ambassador was also raised.
The district commission, however, relied on the definition of 'endorsement' under Section 2(18) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and held the complaint to be maintainable. This was challenged in revision before the State Commission but it also refused to enter into any specific finding as to maintainability. Aggrieved, the actor came before the High Court.
The Court considered the definitions of 'endorsement' and 'unfair trade practice' under the Act and remarked that the term 'endorser' is not specifically mentioned therein, except under Section 21.
The Court then opined that liability for deficiency of service or unfair trade practice can be imposed on endorser only if there is a direct link between endorser and the persons availing the service.
Next, the Court looked into the complaint to see if there was any direct link was made out. It noted that there were only two references of the endorser in the complaint, the first one that he was an ambassador and the second that Manappuram's manager assured that the interest rate will be as endorsed by its brand ambassador in the advertisements. This, the Court felt, did not establish a direct link between the complainants and the brand ambassador.
Noting that the there was no direct link between the brand ambassador and the complainants' transaction with the brand, the Court absolved the actor from liability and quashed the impugned orders.

The Kerala High Court recently held that a brand ambassador will not be liable for a brand's unfair trade practice or deficiency in service unless a direct link is established between him and the consumer's transaction. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.

17/01/2026

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi,comprising Justice A.P.

17/01/2026

NCDRC Sets Aside Medical Negligence Finding Against SGPGI, Holds Institute Liable Only For Deficient Documentation

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi,comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), has partly allowed an appeal filed by the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGI), Lucknow. The Commission set aside the State Commission's findings of medical negligence against the treating doctors, while holding the Institute liable solely for deficiencies in record-keeping and documentation.
The complainant, Rajendra Nath Keserwani, first admitted his son to the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (OP No.1) in November 1992 with suspected typhoid fever. Subsequent investigations, including a bone marrow test, confirmed a diagnosis of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) on 02.12.1992. Chemotherapy was commenced on 18th December 1992. The complainant later alleged that despite the diagnosis, the child continued to remain in the general ward under a paediatrician rather than being shifted to the Immunology Department.
On 09.05.1994, the child suffered a relapse and was readmitted to the Immunology Department, where he was treated by Dr. Sonia Nityanand, Dr. Chandrashekhar, and Dr. Negi (OP Nos. 3–5). During the course of treatment, he was shifted from a private room to the isolation ward. The child developed hypotension and died on 31.05.1994. The complainant contended that two death certificates reflected different causes of death—one mentioning “septic shock” and another “leukaemia.”
Alleging deficiency in service—including improper treatment, lack of consent, inappropriate ward placement, and failure to provide complete medical records—the complainant approached the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The State Commission allowed the complaint, held the opposite parties negligent, and awarded compensation of ₹49 lakh with interest. The opposite parties filed an appeal before the NCDRC, arguing that the findings were unsupported by evidence and based on extraneous material.
The complainant alleged that no valid consent was taken for the bone marrow procedure, chemotherapy, or other interventions performed on the child. He contended that despite the confirmed diagnosis of Leukemia in 1992, the child continued to be managed in the general ward under a paediatrician, rather than being shifted to the appropriate specialty department.
The complainant further argued that the two death certificates issued by the hospital reflected contradictory causes of death—one mentioning “septic shock” and the other “leukaemia.” The complainant also asserted that the hospital failed to provide complete medical records, particularly from the 1992 admission, and submitted that this withholding of documents, along with alleged improper treatment and mismanagement, amounted to clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
The Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (OP No.1) and the treating doctors (OP Nos. 2–5) argued that the child was suffering from a terminal form of leukemia and that no evidence had been produced to establish medical negligence. They contended that the State Commission relied on downloaded internet material, treating it as expert opinion without disclosure or authentication, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and depriving them of an opportunity to rebut it.
The Opposite Parties submitted that the diagnosis of Leukemia in 1992 was made promptly and that chemotherapy and subsequent treatment were administered strictly in accordance with accepted medical protocols. The child was treated under the Paediatrics and Immunology Departments, and clarified that a Haematology Department did not exist in SGPGI at the relevant time. The Opposite Parties further emphasized that shifting the child to the isolation ward was undertaken to ensure closer observation near the nursing station and did not amount to negligence.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that there was no evidence to establish medical negligence on the part of the treating doctors (OP Nos. 2–5). The Commission observed that the diagnosis of leukemia in 1992 was made promptly, and that chemotherapy and subsequent treatment were administered with due diligence. It rejected the State Commission's finding that the child was carelessly treated under a paediatrician, noting that the treatment was carried out in consultation with the Immunology Department and that the Haematology Department did not exist in SGPGI at the relevant time.
The Commission strongly criticised the State Commission for deciding the case without any expert medical opinion and for relying extensively on theoretical internet material as if it were expert evidence, even though such material had never been placed on record or disclosed to the parties. This, the Commission held, amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the appellants were deprived of any opportunity to refute the material relied upon.
While the doctors were exonerated of negligence, the Commission found the Institute (OP No.1) deficient in its administrative responsibilities. It noted that SGPGI failed to maintain and furnish complete medical records—particularly from the 1992 admission—and that the consent forms produced were improperly maintained, lacking signatures and essential disclosures. Such lapses, it held, constituted clear deficiency in service.
Accordingly, the NCDRC partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the State Commission's findings of medical negligence against the doctors while holding SGPGI (O.P No.1) liable solely for deficient record-keeping. The SGPGI (O.P No.1) was directed to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation and ₹1 lakh as litigation cost.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi,comprising Justice A.P.

16/01/2026

📢 ഇൻഷുറൻസ് ഏജന്റുമാർ അറിഞ്ഞിരിക്കേണ്ട കാര്യങ്ങൾ : IRDAI നിശ്ചയിച്ചിട്ടുള്ള നിർബന്ധിത പെരുമാറ്റച്ചട്ടങ്ങൾ (Code of Conduct) 📜⚖️

ഇൻഷുറൻസ് വിൽപനയിൽ ഏർപ്പെട്ടിരിക്കുന്ന ഓരോ വ്യക്തിയും പാലിക്കേണ്ട നിയമപരമായ ബാധ്യതകൾ താഴെ പറയുന്നവയാണ്. ഇവ ലംഘിക്കുന്നത് ലൈസൻസ് റദ്ദാക്കുന്നതിനും കടുത്ത നിയമനടപടികൾക്കും കാരണമാകും.

1. ലൈസൻസ് നിയമങ്ങൾ പ്രകാരമുള്ള ഉത്തരവാദിത്തങ്ങൾ 🆔

ഓരോ ഏജന്റും ഉപഭോക്താവിനെ സമീപിക്കുമ്പോൾ:
• വ്യക്തത: താൻ ആരാണെന്നും ഏത് കമ്പനിയെയാണ് പ്രതിനിധീകരിക്കുന്നതെന്നും വ്യക്തമാക്കണം.
• ലൈസൻസ്: ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടാൽ തന്റെ ലൈസൻസ് വിവരങ്ങൾ കാണിക്കണം.
• ആവശ്യങ്ങൾ തിരിച്ചറിയുക: കസ്റ്റമറുടെ സാമ്പത്തിക സ്ഥിതിയും ആവശ്യങ്ങളും മനസ്സിലാക്കി അവർക്ക് അനുയോജ്യമായ പോളിസി മാത്രം നിർദ്ദേശിക്കുക.
• സുതാര്യത: ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടാൽ പോളിസിയുടെ പ്രീമിയം തുകയെക്കുറിച്ചും ഏജന്റിന് ലഭിക്കുന്ന കമ്മീഷനെക്കുറിച്ചും വ്യക്തമാക്കണം.
• വിവരങ്ങൾ നൽകുക: പ്രൊപ്പോസൽ ഫോം പൂരിപ്പിക്കേണ്ടതിന്റെ പ്രാധാന്യവും അതിൽ സത്യസന്ധമായ വിവരങ്ങൾ നൽകേണ്ടതിന്റെ ആവശ്യകതയും കസ്റ്റമറെ ബോധ്യപ്പെടുത്തണം.

2. പോളിസി എടുക്കുന്നവരുടെ താൽപ്പര്യ സംരക്ഷണം 🛡️

• സത്യസന്ധമായ വെളിപ്പെടുത്തൽ: പോളിസിയിലെ ഗുണങ്ങൾ മാത്രമല്ല, അതിലെ നിയന്ത്രണങ്ങൾ (Exclusions), വെയിറ്റിംഗ് പിരീഡ്, ക്ലെയിം ലഭിക്കാനുള്ള നിബന്ധനകൾ എന്നിവയും നിർബന്ധമായും പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കണം.
• നിഷ്പക്ഷമായ ഉപദേശം: ഉപഭോക്താവ് ഏജന്റിന്റെ ഉപദേശത്തെ ആശ്രയിക്കുമ്പോൾ, ആ ഉപദേശം സ്വാർത്ഥലാഭമില്ലാത്തതും നിഷ്പക്ഷവുമായിരിക്കണം.
• ഫോം പൂരിപ്പിക്കൽ: ഏജന്റാണ് ഫോം പൂരിപ്പിക്കുന്നതെങ്കിൽ, അതിലെ കാര്യങ്ങൾ കസ്റ്റമർക്ക് വ്യക്തമായി പറഞ്ഞുകൊടുത്തിട്ടുണ്ടെന്നും അവർ അത് മനസ്സിലാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ടെന്നും ഉറപ്പുവരുത്തി സാക്ഷ്യപ്പെടുത്തണം.

3. നിയമവിരുദ്ധമായ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങൾ ഒഴിവാക്കുക 🚫

• തെറ്റായ വിവരങ്ങൾ നൽകി പോളിസി വിൽക്കാൻ പാടില്ല.
• ഉപഭോക്താവിനെ നിർബന്ധിച്ചോ (Coercion) പ്രലോഭനങ്ങളിൽ വീഴ്ത്തിയോ പോളിസി എടുപ്പിക്കരുത്.
• മറ്റ് ഏജന്റുമാരുടെ ബിസിനസ്സിൽ അനാവശ്യമായി ഇടപെടുകയോ കസ്റ്റമറെ വഴിതെറ്റിക്കുകയോ ചെയ്യരുത്.

4. കമ്പനിയുടെ ഉത്തരവാദിത്തം 🏢

• ഏജന്റ് വരുത്തുന്ന ഓരോ പിഴവിനും തെറ്റായ നടപടികൾക്കും ഇൻഷുറൻസ് കമ്പനി കൂടി ഉത്തരവാദിയാണ്.
• ഏജന്റുമാർക്ക് കൃത്യമായ പരിശീലനം നൽകാനും അവരുടെ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങൾ നിരീക്ഷിക്കാനും കമ്പനിക്ക് ബാധ്യതയുണ്ട്.

📌 ഒരു മാതൃകാ ഏജന്റ് ചെയ്യേണ്ടത് ✅

✔️ സത്യസന്ധത: എല്ലാ കാര്യങ്ങളും സുതാര്യമായി വെളിപ്പെടുത്തുക. ✔️ കൃത്യത: പോളിസി ഫോമുകളിൽ കസ്റ്റമറുടെ അറിവോടെ ശരിയായ വിവരങ്ങൾ മാത്രം രേഖപ്പെടുത്തുക.
✔️ സേവനം: പോളിസി വിൽക്കുമ്പോൾ മാത്രമല്ല, അതിനുശേഷമുള്ള സേവനങ്ങൾക്കും ക്ലെയിം നടപടികൾക്കും കസ്റ്റമറെ സഹായിക്കുക.
✔️ വിശ്വസ്തത: ഇൻഷുറൻസ് മേഖലയുടെ വിശ്വാസ്യത തകർക്കുന്ന രീതിയിലുള്ള വാഗ്ദാനങ്ങൾ നൽകാതിരിക്കുക.
ഓർക്കുക: കൃത്യമായ വിവരങ്ങൾ നൽകി പോളിസി വിൽക്കുന്നത് ഏജന്റിന്റെയും കസ്റ്റമറുടെയും സുരക്ഷയ്ക്ക് അത്യാവശ്യമാണ്. നിയമങ്ങൾ പാലിക്കുന്നത് നിങ്ങളുടെ തൊഴിലിനെ മാന്യവും സുരക്ഷിതവുമാക്കുന്നു.

16/01/2026

Attention: Insurance Agents 🚨

Providing wrong information while filling out policy documents and practicing mis-selling can lead to serious legal consequences.

If a policy is sold by providing false information, the customer has the right to file a complaint against the agent in Consumer Courts and Civil Courts for the resulting losses. According to observations by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, agents bear equal responsibility for recording incorrect information.

Minor negligence during the sale or purchase of an insurance policy can lead to major legal complications and the rejection of claims in the future. Legal guidelines regarding this are provided below:

Who should be cautious? 👥

Insurance Agents.

Bank Managers and staff.

Those providing insurance along with Loans/FDs.

Tele-callers and other intermediaries.

High-Risk Practices to Avoid 🚫

Signing Blank Forms: Getting a customer’s signature on an unfilled proposal form is a grave error.

Hiding Information: Failure to record illnesses, income, or smoking/drinking habits in the form can lead to claim rejection.

False Promises: Do not give illegal assurances like "100% Claim Guaranteed" or "Money will double."

Hiding Terms: Selling a policy by concealing waiting periods or disease-specific limits (Sub-limits) is illegal.

Forced Sales: Do not compel a customer to take insurance as a condition for a loan or other services.

Duties of the Agent and Customer ✅

Honesty: Provide truthful answers to all questions in the policy form.

Documentation: Ensure there are accurate documents to support the information provided.

Transparency: Clearly explain both the benefits and the limitations of the policy to the customer.

Remember: Accurate Information + Proper Documentation + Transparency = Secure Insurance.