Showing posts with label Insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Insurance. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

The Illusion of Children-Specific Products


Financial products that are designed specifically for your children’s future are not what they are cracked up to be

By Dhirendra Kumar | Jan 16, 2013, Value Research



If you love your children, buy our product. As product pitches go, it’s simple, direct and manipulative. Unfortunately, it’s also far too widely used. While I have nothing to say on the merits or otherwise of health drinks or educational aids or even cars (!) that use this tack, financial products are another matter. Products that use the children ploy to sell have a long history in India. Insurance as well as mutual fund products that have the words ‘child’ or children in their name have been around for so long that many people assume that there is a specific class of products that provide some unique advantage to their children’s future that other products do not.

So much so, that at Value Research, we get a substantial flow of emails from worried parents who are looking for the best possible ‘child plan.’ With years of background exposure to the phrase, they just assume that somewhat like a tax plan, a child plan is an integral part of personal finance. Well, guess what, ‘child plan’ is actually not a financial term all but a marketing one.
There’s nothing distinctive about them. For example, one of the largest ‘child’ mutual funds was for years just a vanilla balanced fund of mediocre performance. The pitch was that you should invest in it and use the money for your kids’ college fees. However, the returns that such funds produce are not made up of money that is especially designed for paying college fees—it’s just normal money. However, if the loving parents had chosen better performing funds, they would have more of it and that would probably be some actual help.
Insurance products too play a similar trick. There’s nothing distinctive about the products themselves. You can pitch a product by saying that if you die then kids’ college fees can be paid out of the benefits, but so could those from any insurance policy.

source: http://www.valueresearchonline.com/story/h2_storyview.asp?str=21898

Faking NCB to save insurance premium

Faking NCB to save insurance premium–: There is no point!


No-claim-bonus for mediclaim or car insurance is given as an incentive for not making a claim. Car insurance NCB can be transferred to the new insurer. Resist the temptation to save on premium by faking the NCB while moving to a new insurer, else you will face problems when a genuine claim is filed

Amit Kumar (name changed) had a car insurance with Royal Sundaram in 2009-10 and 2010-11. There was one claim in each year. He says, “When I renewed it with HDFC ERGO in the third year (2011-12), I was told by the insurance agent, that he will give No-Claim-Bonus (NCB) and bring the insurance premium amount down. 

When I told him that I had made an insurance claim that year, he said, nothing to worry as I am switching the insurance company and he will manage it. So, I was offered a 20% NCB by the new insurer. Fortunately there was no accident in the third year. In the fourth year (2012-13), I purchased online insurance from Royal Sundaram. I was offered 25% NCB as there was no accident or claim in that year and also there was 20% NCB mentioned in my HDFC ERGO policy.”

Kumar met with a small accident in last week of Nov 2012 and was in for a shock. TheRoyal Sundaram executive called up after a good 5 days and told him that he had wrongly claimed NCB, for which he was not eligible from HDFC ERGO in his third year. HDFC ERGO had gone back and checked the claims made in prior years and unilaterally reduced his insurance tenure from 12 months to 10 months to adjust for the NCB claim. In effect, says Kumar, “My insurance with HDFC ERGO ended in August 2012 itself. After I made claim in December 2012, I was told by the Royal Sundaram executive that I had misrepresented the facts when buying online policy in October 2012.”

Clearly, Amit Kumar fell for a glib-talking sales agent who said he could fix the problem. However, on the face of it the fact is simple—Kumar knew he had claimed insurance and was still claiming a NCB. Remember, buying car insurance with fake NCB is as good as not having any insurance. You may be tempted to ask for NCB when changing your insurance company in the hope that the new insurer will not find out and that you get a clean slate going forward. After all, NCB can give up to 50% discount on Own Damage premium. But someone who is in the habit of claiming insurance almost every year ought to be even more careful.

Faking NCB is like washing away the sin of being involved in an accident. Today, insurers share far more data than they did in the past and it is easy to get caught. This is supposed to happen at the time of underwriting and not really when a claim is made, but don’t be surprised if insurance companies share data only when there is a claim.

The NCB rule is clear—“You can avail of the NCB facility if you change the insurer on renewal. 
You would have to produce proof of the NCB earned by way of renewal notice from the current insurer. 
Alternately, you can produce your original, expiring policy along with a certification that you have lodged no claims on the expiring policy. 
For this, the proof can be in the form of a letter confirming the NCB entitlement from the previous insurer.”

Manipulation of NCB is a major cause of claims denial. Don’t get lured by agent to ‘fix’ your NCB and give good premium rates. The insurance company may just play dumb until there is a claim even though they should validate the NCB claimed by customer at underwriting. It is as though the insurance company is underwriting with understanding that they don’t have to pay the claim. Giving any amount of discounts in this case is still profitable for company. There cannot be anything more risk-free for the insurance company!

The customer is supposed to have signed the insurance contract in utmost good faith. Amit Kumar is clearly at fault, but does it completely absolve HDFC ERGO and Royal Sundaram? Did they do the necessary due diligence?

There are five points worth pondering –
•     Do insurance companies really do underwriting or accept the NCB desired by the customer to make a quick sale?
•      How did the HDFC ERGO agent manipulate the system? Did HDFC ERGO also mis-sell the policy?
•    Did HDFC ERGO realise the misrepresentation and reduce the policy term from 12 to 10 months?
•     If Amit Kumar (policyholder) knowingly misrepresented facts, what happens to the pending claim with Royal Sundaram and the status of existing insurance cover (2012-13)?
•    Was Royal Sundaram aware that Amit Kumar availing 25% NCB (2012-13) was already insured by it in 2009-10 and 2010-11 and had claims in both the years?

Agents represent insurance company while brokers represent you. Brokers have more responsibility than agents in case of mis-selling. What are the steps taken by some brokers to ensure that NCB is not manipulated by their client? 

If No-Claim-Bonus (NCB) is wrongly claimed, your claim will be rejected and your policy cancelled. The agent is contractually not liable to you. Don’t fall into the agent’s trap of a false NCB lure. The company will wake up at the time of claim and uncover your wrongdoings


Brokers have more responsibility than agents in case of mis-selling. According to Avadhoot Mavlankar, principal officer, Shinrai Insurance Broking Services, “We take the renewal notice from the client, but we also insist on a NCB confirmation letter duly signed by the client, especially from unknown clients. This is because the renewal notice is generated one to two months before the policy expiry. A claim can occur after renewalnotice issuance and prior to the expiry of the policy.”


He added, “An agent represents the insurance company, so contractually the agent is not liable to the insured. In my opinion, this is purely Mr Kumar’s fault. Insurance contracts are contracts of utmost good faith. Let alone the good faith, Mr Kumar has purposely declared wrong NCB entitlement. So his case is weak.”

Sure, Mr Kumar is at fault by blindly agreeing to HDFC ERGO’s agent, but how did Royal Sundaram not know that Mr Kumar was their customer for two previous years with the same car and had made a claim in each year? In era of computerisation, it is almost certain that the insurance company knows or should know more at time of underwriting. Once the claim is filed, the insurance company goes in overdrive mode to scrutinize your NCB and it is indeed a perfect trap to proclaim that policyholder erred with NCB while buying the policy and hence no claim is payable.

When contacted by Moneylife, Royal Sundaram claims that HDFC ERGO had unearthed the fake 20% NCB and hence reduced policy term from 12 to 10 months. Interestingly, Royal Sundaram is unwilling to give that in writing to the policyholder. The only reason given for claims rejection is that the customer misrepresented the facts while buying policy with Royal Sundaram.

HDFC ERGO has maintained stoic silence when asked by Moneylife. If Royal Sundaram is true about its assertion, did HDFC ERGO take any action against its own agent who lured Mr Kumar to go for 20% NCB even though the agent was told by the customer that he has one claim in each of the previous years? The agent claims that he does not remember as he had sold the policy more than one year ago. How true, considering that it may be routine for this agent to bait a prospect with NCB manipulation! 

According to Mr Kumar, “I tried to check with HDFC ERGO executives if they had intimated to me about the shortfall in the policy. They are saying that they are unable to retrieve the details and that they would have informed me by phone or letter. I am sure that I have not received any letter or phone or mail from them about the shortfall. I have not changed my address.”

Avahoot Mavlankar, says, “In normal course HDFC ERGO (new insurer) would confirm the NCB entitlement from the old insurer (Royal Sundaram), till this time the policy is already issued with NCB declared by the client. Now, HDFC ERGO would have got the reply from Royal Sundaram that client has made a claim and hence there is no NCB entitlement. So, there is NCB recovery amount due from the client. In normal course, HDFC ERGO would have sent the notice for the same on the policy address (which may be different from communication address). The insurer might not have received any reply from the client within the stipulated period, so the only option available to it is short binding of the policy i.e. adjust the recovery amount by curtailing the period of insurance. HDFC ERGO must have also issued endorsement to that effect.”

After the claims rejection by Royal Sundaram due to misrepresentation, the insurance policy is technically no longer valid. Mr Kumar did not get any response from the company about the status of the policy. He was kept in a limbo for few days until Royal Sundaram agreed with Moneylife that the issue needs to be closed to ensure that Mr Kumar is covered going forward.

Royal Sundaram agreed that they will make a decision on underwriting fresh policy or recover the NCB amount to continue with existing policy. If not, then Mr Kumar will not have any cover during the interim, which can be huge liability for him considering that he has been having accident almost every year! Mr Kumar, if your car driving is so bad, how dare you to go for NCB considering that you are financially well-to-do working in the IT field?

On 18 January 2013, Mr Kumar received email response from Royal Sundaram that the OD (Own Damage) portion of the policy stands cancelled with effect from 15 January 2013. Looks like the insurance company decided to cut-off business from Mr Kumar.

source : http://www.moneylife.in/article/faking-ncb-to-save-insurance-premiumndashii-there-is-no-point/30835.html?utm_source=PoweRelayEDM&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Subscriber%23111138&utm_campaign=Today%27s%20Exclusives

Are you trapped in toxic ULIPs?

By RAJ PRADHAN | 04/01/2013

Insurance policyholders entrapped in toxic Unit-linked Insurance Plans like that of Century Plus of Bajaj Allianz are still paying the price for products approved by IRDA and then banned in September 2010. Insurers openly dare the insured to go to the ombudsman, as they are emboldened by customer signatures on the dotted line

Suresh Nayak (name changed) is an ex-serviceman who served in 1971 Indo-Pak war. Even though he was victorious on the battleground over 40 years ago, he is today fighting a losing battle with Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance. His investment of Rs 1 lakh in January 2008 has been reduced to Rs 20,586 thanks to the toxic policy administration charge (PAC) of 1.75% of sum assured (SA) in Century Plus ULIP; the SA being Rs 5 lakh in this case. How can the PAC be linked to the insurance cover taken, when it should only affect the mortality charges calculation? Why did IRDA (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority) approve such toxic fine print?

While the fine print of charges may seem innocuous, it has eaten up 44% of his investment over five years. Even if the investment was put in debt funds instead of equities, any increase in NAV would have been negated by the heavy deduction of units under the garb of PAC. The investment is a guaranteed loss-making proposition even on a long-term basis. If the customer remains invested in the policy, the fund value may possibly go down to zero in a couple of years.

What service has Bajaj Allianz really given to deserve getting 44% of the investment over five years to administer the policy? After all, the fund administration charge is separately levied to manage the fund. The risk is taken by the customer in ULIP. If equities perform badly, the fund value goes down. The insurer still gobbles a hefty PAC of 9% p.a. Not to mention about premium allocation charge of 2% for first two years. The insurer wins by taking the policyholders to the cleaners.

Even though IRDA has banned old ULIPs since September 2010, what is the recourse for the policyholders who have been already trapped? It is time IRDA takes stock of the situation and offer relief to policyholders who are trapped in products it approved only to be banned later. It is especially true for old ULIPs which continue with atrocious charges even after completion of three policy years.

Bajaj Allianz has openly dared Mr Nayak to go to the insurance ombudsman by giving all the contact details in the email. He claims that company’s grievance department personnel told him over the phone that it can consider paying Rs 65,542, but later backed out from the offer by giving email response detailing all the charges that reduced the investment to a paltry sum of Rs 20,586.

The insurance company knows that the ombudsman’s hands are tied as the customer has already signed on the dotted line irrespective of whether he understood the fine print of charges. In many cases, the agony of the policyholder does not end here. Many old ULIPs have horrendous surrender charges. It means the customer is trapped between the PAC and surrender charges. The customer cannot come out of it alive!

Here is how Bajaj Allianz Century Plus ULIP’s surrender charge formula can deter the policyholder from exiting the policy. The surrender charge formula is [1 - (1/1.10)^N ] * first years’ annualised premium (where N is 5 years, less the elapsed policy duration in years and a fraction thereof). In the case of Mr Nayak, the surrender charge will be Rs 9,090 in case he surrenders before completion of five years. It means if Mr Nayak wants to surrender today, he will get only Rs 11,496. There is no surrender charge after completing five years. 

IRDA needs to wake up to the reality of what policyholders have got into with the creative products designed by insurance companies to make them rich at the cost of common man. The products have been wealth destroyers for hard working people lured into the tax savings trap. An insurance company will design innovative products to fulfil its bottom line and agents will sell to get their commission, but IRDA approved the products. Banning it in September 2010 did not solve the problems faced by existing policyholders.

The issue is not just about Bajaj Allianz ULIP. It is the same with many other toxic ULIPs from other insurance companies too. In the second part of the article we will talk about other such examples and cases where surrender of old ULIPs may not make sense, especially if the charges have been substantially reduced after three policy years.


Anuj Sharma (name changed) wrote to Moneylife last year. He says, “I have been mis-sold a ULIP (unit linked insurance plan) for which I am paying a premium of Rs 25 lakh a year to Metlife India Insurance through Axis bank. I was told I will get a 10% return on paying three premiums and withdrawing my Rs 75 lakhs after three years. However, just before I paid my third premium, when I checked the value of the policy, it was only Rs 21 lakh against Rs 50 lakh that I had paid. I could not believe that the first premium was totally taken away as cost by the insurance company. The plan is called Met Growth and the fund option is 100% in debt. All communication with insurance company is with me on email, but the company has simply refused to refund me the money. IRDA (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority) got back saying I need to file with the insurance ombudsman first, but the ombudsman replied saying that it will not take up the case.”

While Anuj has to blame himself for buying a product without understanding it, how can IRDA approve a product wherein the first year premium just vanishes in thin air? Met Growth ULIP eats 100% of the first year premium. The money comes back in terms of guaranteed loyalty additions (50% of first year premium at end of 10 years, 70% of the first year premium at end of 15 years). It means that you will get 120% of the first year premium by end of 15 years, if you have paid all the premiums and the policy is in-force. Anuj will have to pay Rs 25 lakh every year for 15 years to ensure that his first year premium comes back to him!

IRDA came out with new ULIP regulations in September 2010. But, what about toxic old ULIP policies that are still in force and cleared by the regulator? Where do these people like Anuj Sharma go? Why are they paying for mistakes of the regulator approving such toxic products? If IRDA can have new regulations protecting the insured for getting back the funds of a discontinued policy after earning bank savings interest rate (4% p.a.) till the lock-in period of five years, why can’t it be made applicable to customers trapped in old ULIPs? Levying charges without proper justification is like a day-light robbery done by old ULIPs under the approval of IRDA.

Another Moneylife reader has written the following, “In January 2008, then bank manager of Centurian Bank of Punjab and a couple of Aviva reps deceitfully sold Aviva Life Saver Plus policy to one of my relative, who is a widow. She thought her money (Rs 15 lakh) is being invested in a scheme where she will get a steady income of about Rs 15k - 20k monthly to look after her two minor kids’ educational and other household expenses. She trusted the bank manager as she has been banking at the same location for a number of years. She was advised to sign the back page of the application and the rest formalities will be filled by them. She will start getting her investment return in a month or so.”

“Not aware of the application contents, the annual premiums and the administration charges for ULIP, she was shocked to know that her annual premiums are Rs15 lakh for the next 10 years (instead of only one year). In addition her investment is being depleted through various charges levied by Aviva as well as due to the market fluctuation. Needless to say that the bank manager and others are no longer with the bank and Aviva customer service is playing to its own tune.”

The problem is that in many old ULIPs, customers almost lost everything if they did not pay the three premiums. Aviva Life Saver Plus policy has surrender charge of 90% if only one premium was paid; 75% if only two premiums paid and 50% if only three premiums paid. The surrender charge goes to zero only when more than five premiums have been paid. Many old ULIPs had such customer unfriendly surrender charges.

What relief can IRDA bring to customers who lost almost their full investment due to toxic products and intermediaries fooling customers by trapping them with regular premium payment option to earn higher commission? Surely, some kind of negotiated settlement should be forced by IRDA onto insurance companies in these rare cases of extraordinary hardships faced by policyholders based on the quantum of money they lost just as “charges”.

In the third part of the article we will talk about how lapsed policies of Anuj Sharma and others significantly add to the insurance company’s profits.


In September 2010, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) implemented new ULIP (unit linked insurance plan) regulations. It acted ‘tough’ by banning existing ULIPs but did not bring relief to toxic old ULIP policies that are still in force. Either the insured are still paying exorbitant ‘charges’ for no real value given by an insurance company or they have surrendered the policy only to get peanuts. Old ULIPs levied high charges even after completion of three years and/or gave next to nothing for surrendered policies. No wonder the insurer’s profits zoomed with higher number of ULIP surrenders. Nearly 40% of the insurance company’s profits are solely on the loot from policy surrenders. With the bottomlines looking fabulous, it may be IPO (initial public offer) time.

Goldman Sachs India’s life insurance report (26 October 2012) has tracked six leading private life insurance companies and states that they have lapsed policy profits of Rs1,553 crore (39%) out of the profit-after-tax (PAT) of Rs 3,952 crore for the fiscal ending March 2012. In the previous year, there was lapsed policy profits of Rs163 crore (68%) out of PAT of Rs242 crore for the same companies. 

The ULIP surrender charge as a percent of AUM (assets under management) has been steadily increasing for the insurance companies ranging from 2% in FY10 to nearly 17% in FY12. According to the Goldman Sachs report, “The high surrender charges associated with old ULIPs were one of the key drivers of the profit.”

ULIP surrender charges /AUM (%)
FY10
FY11
FY12
Bajaj Allianz Life
7.3
13.3
15.4
HDFC Life
6.1
10.5
8.9
ICICI Pru Life
13
16.9
13.2
Kotak Life
7
12.3
16.9
Max Life
3.6
8.6
10.9
Reliance Life
4.1
10
14.3
SBI Life
2
8.2
12
Source: Goldman Sachs report

Traditional surrender charges as a percent of AUM has been low even though traditional products also have steep surrender charges. According to the Goldman Sachs report, “There have been fewer policy surrenders in traditional products, which in our view are due to the way these products are sold.”

Traditional surrender charges /AUM (%)
FY10
FY11
FY12
Bajaj Allianz Life
1.5
1.6
3.5
HDFC Life
1.5
1.8
1.3
ICICI Pru Life
1.1
0.6
2.3
Kotak Life
7.6
3.1
5.2
Max Life
2.0
1.9
1.9
Reliance Life
0.5
0.3
0.2
SBI Life
0.6
0.7
1.2
Source: Goldman Sachs report

According to the report, “Lapsed profits have accounted for a wide range of 10%-190% of the total profit after tax for companies under coverage in FY12.” Moneylife had contacted the six insurance companies and got varying feedback, insurers with higher lapsed profits played different tune than the ones with least lapsed profits.

Insurance company
FY11 PAT
FY11 Lapsed Profits
FY12 PAT
FY12 Lapsed Profits
FY12 lapsed profits / PAT (%)
Bajaj Allianz Life
1,057
367
1,308
480
36.7
HDFC Life
-99
223
97
184
188.3
ICICI PruLife
807
737
1,384
672
48.6
Kotak Life
102
104
146
117
80.3
Max Life
194
184
459
47
10.2
SBI Life
366
22
555
52
9.4
Source: Goldman Sachs report. PAT and Lapsed profits in Rs crore

Bajaj Allianz Life— “Cannot comment as we don’t know from where lapsed profits numbers in the report come from. Our financial statements can be accessed by the public.”

HDFC Life —“FY12 PAT is Rs271 crore instead of Rs97 crore as given in the report. It means that lapsed profits as percentage of PAT is 67.89% instead of 188%.”

ICICI Pru Life— “Cannot acknowledge or deny the numbers at this time. We take steps to prevent policies from getting lapsed.”

Kotak Life—“FY12 PAT is Rs203 crore instead of Rs146 crore as given in the report. It means that lapsed profits as percentage of PAT is 57.63% instead of 80.3%. Moreover, we are unsure of lapsed profit numbers in the report. It is not possible to calculate it for traditional policies. ULIP lapsed profits are also not available, but it is possible to be derived from fund-future-appreciation of the policies that are unlikely to be revived.”

Max Life—“Numbers confirmed. Lapsed profits are not in financial statements, but can be derived. While lapsed profits results in a short-term accounting profit at the time of surrender, this does not reveal the full financial impact of surrender. Due to surrenders, life insurers loose future profits. Max Life has the highest conservation ratio of 80% (Jan-Oct 2012) in the industry, even higher than the LIC.”
 
SBI Life—“Numbers confirmed.”

IRDA chairman J Hari Narayan realised the unhealthy trend and had given following comment at an industry seminar. “Insurance company profits should not be driven by lapsed policy profits.” If IRDA can have new regulations (September 2010), protecting the insured for getting back the funds of a discontinued policy after earning bank savings interest rate (4% p.a.) till the lock-in period of five years, why can’t it be made applicable to customers trapped in old ULIPs? Why can’t this be applied to policies sold before September 2010? Why does some old ULIPs levy surrender charge even after having the policy in force for 10 or more years?

One Moneylife reader had completed three years of premium payment for Bajaj Allianz New UnitGain ULIP and wanted to surrender. He was deterred by surrender charge formula. [1 - (1/1.06)^N ] * first years’ annualised premium (where N is 10 years, less the elapsed policy duration in years and a fraction thereof). The policyholder finally decided to keep the policy for 10 years as there is no surrender charge after 10 years.

In recent times there has been increased number of calls from dubious sources claiming to be insurance company or IRDA representatives. They pitch for the policyholder to surrender the old ULIP and buy new one by giving a fear overdose of the product being discontinued by IRDA. Obviously, someone wants to push the policyholders who are already sitting on an edge to give up on their old ULIP policy. Do not fall into this trap.



source : http://www.moneylife.in/article/are-you-trapped-in-toxic-ulips-blame-irda---i/30522.html?utm_source=PoweRelayEDM&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Subscriber%23111138&utm_campaign=Today%27s%20Exclusives

IRDA plans to redress individual complaints against firms


ET, Dec 28, 2002


First it was only the internal grievance cells in public sector companies that were available to disgruntled customers. Then came the consumer courts, whose scope was extended to adjudicate over insurance companies.
The office of the insurance ombudsman was created for settling grievances for insurance companies. Now the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority has said that it will take up redressal of individual complaints against insurance companies.
Customers are hopeful that they would now have a better chance of getting their grievances addressed, considering that IRDA wields the power to penalise errant companies.
Earlier the IRDA had prescribed the guidelines for protection for policyholders interest and the guidelines included directions on transparency and prescribed time frame for settlement of claims.
But this is the first time IRDA has said that it will look into individual complaints within the organisation. According to sources, IRDA's move to set up a grievance cell within its own set-up was prompted by the flood of complaints that the authority has been receiving.
A large number of the complaints were against companies which were refusing to accept business such as `act only' cover for motor vehicles. There have also been complaints against companies for non-settlement of claims.
In a recent notice IRDA has said, "Though the system of ombudsman has been established in 12 towns in the country and that system is working reasonably well, of late there have been some complaints received from the members of the public about the delay in the settlement of claims and inattention to the requirements of consumers and customers of the insurance companies.
To take care of such representations, the authority hereby constitutes a cell within its existing organisation which will receive the complaints/grievances and attend to them in as expeditious manner as possible".
The notice points out that while the authority cannot function as an underwriter and decide on issues like the adoption of underwriting practices or the claims procedure it will look into genuine cases of delay in the settlement of public grievances. It may be recalled that the IRDA had prescribed penal interest on the claim amount for delay in settlement of claims.
The cell is constituted of IRDA's internal officers Prabodh Chander, executive director, Randip Singh Jagpal, Anil Kumar Arora and Rashmi Jagdeep Abhichandani all officers of the authority. Consumers will have to address their grievances to the cell in Hyderabad

How to make a complaint ? 

See the linkhttp://www.policyholder.gov.in/Report.aspx#


IRDA Page http://www.irda.gov.in/ADMINCMS/cms/NormalData_Layout.aspx?page=PageNo225&mid=14.2

                  http://www.policyholder.gov.in/uploads/images/Eng5.jpg

Insurance ombusman in Kolkata 

Ms. Manika Datta
Ms. Manika Datta
Insurance Ombudsman,
Office of the Insurance Ombudsman,
4th Floor, Hindusthan Bldg. Annexe, 4, C.R.Avenue,
Kolkatta – 700 072.
Tel:     033 22124346/(40)
Fax:    033 22124341


http://www.irda.gov.in/ADMINCMS/cms/NormalData_Layout.aspx?page=PageNo234&mid=7.2 and
http://www.irda.gov.in/ADMINCMS/cms/NormalData_Layout.aspx?page=PageNo1357

source : http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2002-12-28/news/27350941_1_irda-plans-insurance-regulatory-grievances

Thursday, August 25, 2011

How to calculate Surrender value, Loan Value of an LIC policy ?

    In order to find a surrender value of a LIC Policy, first you need to find out is PAID UP Value.

PAID up Value = [(No of years premium paid X S.A) / Policy Term] + [Bonus X S.A / 1000]

where S.A = Sum Assured

Example: from LIC Wings Ready Reckoner book, Mr. A has taken an Endowment policy of 30 years term on 15.7.1983 for S.A of 2 lakhs and has paid premium upto date till 15.7.2007 i.e 25 years. Now he wants to know how much is the surrender value.

First let us find out the Paid up value by using the above formula
Paid up value = [25 X 2,00,000 / 30] + [ 1583 X 2,00,000 /1000] = [ 166667 + 316600]= Rs 4,83,267
* Bonus is given from the bonus chart of LIC for 25 years Endowment plan
* Most of the people would get a reminder from LIC with details of your bonus , you can just put the total bonus amount in the second part of above formula or you can also call up 1251 from MTNL or BSNL and get the bonus information by just entering the policy number.


SURRENDER VALUE = Surrender value factor X Paid up value / 100

for above example surrender value factor from lic chart is 65.84 so substituting we get
Surrender value = 65.84 * 4,83,267 / 100 = Rs 3,18,183

Loan Value = 90% of Surrender Value (approximate)
In above case you can get loan of up 90% of Rs 318183 = Rs 2,86,365
http://www.mfexpert.com/2009/02/how-to-calculate-surrender-value-loan.html
SOURCE: