| Almost every term rejection traces back to one field on the form you filled when you bought the policy — and to a clock. For three years the insurer can question it; after three years, Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 shuts that door for good. |
By Dinesh Kumar S · Published 27 May 2026 · 16 min read
Here is the number the insurance industry wants you to remember: in 2024-25, Indian life insurers paid 97.82% of individual death claims by number (IRDAI Annual Report 2024-25, Table I.11). It is a genuinely high figure, and it is true. Here is the number they would rather you did not dwell on: by value, they paid 96.29% — and that small gap between claims-by-count and claims-by-rupee is not random. It is concentrated in exactly the policies that matter most: the large-sum-assured term plans a family actually depends on. The bigger the cover, the harder the look.
So term insurance is not a coin toss. The overwhelming majority of claims are paid, quietly and on time. But when a claim is refused, it is rarely bad luck and almost never arbitrary. It is the predictable result of something that happened years earlier — usually a single field on a form, filled carelessly or filled by somebody else — colliding with a section of a 1938 statute most policyholders have never heard of. The tragedy is that the family discovers the problem at the worst possible moment, when the earner is gone and the money was the whole point.
This article does three things. It shows you the one rule — Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 — that governs whether a claim can be questioned at all, and the three-year wall it builds. It lays out the eight grounds on which term claims are actually rejected, each tied to the clause behind it. And it gives you the four-step, near-free route a family can use to overturn a wrongful rejection, plus the handful of things you can do now to make your own claim almost impossible to refuse. Every rule is traced to its section, regulation or judgment, by date.
In This Article
▸ The One Rule That Changes Everything — Section 45 and the Three-Year Wall
▸ The One Form Field That Decides Your Claim
▸ The Eight Grounds on Which Term Claims Actually Get Rejected
▸ Why a 99% Claim Settlement Ratio Can Still Hide a Problem
▸ What the Courts Now Say — the Pendulum Has Swung Toward Families
▸ If a Genuine Claim Is Rejected — the Four-Step Escalation
▸ How to Make Your Own Claim Almost Impossible to Reject
▸ Frequently Asked Questions
The One Rule That Changes Everything — Section 45 and the Three-Year Wall
Before any specific rejection reason makes sense, you need the rule that sits above all of them. It is Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, rewritten in full by the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (effective from 26 December 2014), and it works like a clock with a wall in the middle.
After three years, the wall is up and it is almost absolute. Section 45(1) says that no life insurance policy "shall be called in question on any ground whatsoever after the expiry of three years" from the latest of the date of the policy, the date risk commenced, the date of revival, or the date a rider was added. Read that literally, because the courts do: after three completed years, the insurer cannot reopen the policy for non-disclosure, for a hidden illness, for a misstatement, for anything — except the narrow argument that no contract ever existed at all (a faked identity, an impersonated medical test). For a family whose policy is more than three years old, this single sub-section is the strongest protection in Indian insurance law.
Within three years, the wall is down, and two doors are open. Section 45(2) lets the insurer question the policy on the ground of fraud — but it must put the grounds and the supporting materials in writing to the insured, the legal heirs or the nominee. And the law deliberately narrows what counts: the Explanations to Section 45(2) say that "mere silence" is not fraud unless silence was, in the circumstances, equivalent to speech, and Section 45(3) protects an insured who can show the misstatement was true to the best of his knowledge or that the suppressed fact was already within the insurer's knowledge.
Section 45(4) is the other door — non-fraudulent misstatement or suppression of a material fact. This is the workhorse of real-world repudiations. But the same sub-section contains the line that protects honest policyholders, and it is worth knowing almost word for word: a misstatement or suppression "shall not be considered material unless it has a direct bearing on the risk undertaken by the insurer", and "the onus is on the insurer to show that had the insurer been aware of the said fact no life insurance policy would have been issued." In other words, the insurer cannot simply point to a blank box; it must prove the omission actually mattered to its decision to insure. And if it does repudiate under Section 45(4), it must refund every premium collected, within 90 days.
Age sits in its own sub-section. Section 45(5) lets the insurer ask for proof of age at any time; if your age was misstated, the policy is not rejected — the sum assured and premium are simply recalculated on the correct age. An understated age is an adjustment, not a denial.
Keep that structure in mind as you read on: three years is the wall; inside it, fraud and material non-disclosure are the two doors; and the burden of proving either sits on the insurer.
The One Form Field That Decides Your Claim
If Section 45 is the law, the proposal form is the document the law acts upon — and the single declaration at the foot of it is the field that decides more term claims than any medical report ever will. Every Indian life policy is built on your written answers and a closing line that those answers "shall be the basis of the contract." Get that line wrong and the contract itself is built on sand.
| These eight answers, and the declaration beneath them, are what a claims investigator reads line by line. Fill them yourself, and fill them completely. |
The Supreme Court showed exactly how decisive this field is in Reliance Life Insurance v Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod, (2019) 6 SCC 175 (decided 24 April 2019). The proposer had taken a policy from another insurer two months earlier and left the "existing insurance" question blank. He died soon after. The State and National Consumer Commissions ordered the claim paid; the Supreme Court reversed them and upheld the repudiation, resting its decision on the proposer's own declaration that his statements were the basis of the contract and that non-disclosure of any material matter would let the company cancel it. One unfilled box, one signed declaration, and a crore-class claim was gone.
The fields most often weaponised at claim time are a short and predictable list — the eight an investigator will compare, line by line, against hospital records, the employer's file, prior-insurer databases, your income-tax returns and your bank record after death:
▸ existing or previously applied-for life and health policies;
▸ tobacco use, in any form and any quantity — the most common single omission;
▸ alcohol consumption pattern;
▸ pre-existing illness — diabetes, hypertension, cardiac, liver, kidney or any treated condition;
▸ family medical history of early or hereditary illness;
▸ occupation, especially hazardous trades;
▸ dangerous hobbies — diving, motorsport, aviation, mountaineering;
▸ declared annual income, which sets the financial-underwriting ceiling on your sum assured.
Consider Rohan, a 34-year-old engineer in Aundh, Pune, who let a tele-caller fill his online proposal and "kept it simple" by ticking non-smoker, though he smoked socially. The policy issued in minutes. Eighteen months later he died of a cardiac event, and the insurer's early-claim investigation pulled a pharmacy and a hospital record noting tobacco use. Because the death fell inside the three-year window, Section 45(4) was live, and the insurer repudiated for material non-disclosure. The disclosed-smoker premium would have been a few thousand rupees more a year. The undisclosed answer cost his family the entire cover. The lesson is not subtle: the cheapest insurance mistake of your life and the most expensive one can be the same checkbox.
The Eight Grounds on Which Term Claims Actually Get Rejected
Strip away the variety and almost every term rejection falls into one of eight buckets. Each has a specific clause behind it.
1. Non-disclosure or suppression of a material fact. The largest category by far, governed by Section 45(4) and now fenced in by the IRDAI Master Circular of 5 September 2024, which requires the insurer to obtain "legally tenable evidence" before repudiating. A hidden illness, a suppressed prior policy, undeclared tobacco — all live here. But remember the materiality test: it must have had a direct bearing on the risk.
2. Misstatement of income / financial underwriting. Insurers cap sum assured at a multiple of income (commonly 15–25 times annual income). A ₹2 crore cover taken against a ₹3 lakh income fails that test; if income was inflated to qualify, that inflation is itself a Section 45(4) ground. Consumer fora have repeatedly upheld repudiation where income and prior policies were both suppressed.
3. Misstatement of age. Handled under Section 45(5) — not a rejection but a recalculation. The insurer adjusts the sum assured or premium to the corrected age and pays the balance.
4. Policy lapse and the grace period. A term policy only pays if it is in force. Miss a premium and you get a grace period — 15 days for monthly mode, 30 days for quarterly, half-yearly or annual mode — during which cover continues and a death claim is paid after adjusting the unpaid premium. Miss the grace period and the policy lapses; a death after lapse, with no revival, means no claim. A lapsed policy can usually be revived within five years on arrears plus interest and fresh underwriting — but revival restarts both the three-year and the suicide clocks.
5. Early-claim investigation. "Early claim" is industry shorthand for a death inside the first three years — the contestable window of Section 45(2) and 45(4). These trigger a full investigation: previous hospitals, prior insurers, employer, bank, ITR. The 2024 Master Circular caps even an investigated death claim at 45 days. After three years, no investigation can ground a repudiation at all.
6. Suicide within twelve months. IRDAI standardised this for all policies issued or revived on or after 1 January 2014. Death by suicide within 12 months of commencement or revival is not paid as a full claim; instead, for a non-linked plan (which is what pure term cover is), the nominee receives at least 80% of the premiums paid, provided the policy was in force. After 12 months, the full sum assured is payable like any other death. Revival resets the 12-month clock.
7. Nominee and documentation gaps. A registered nominee under Section 39 of the Insurance Act can claim directly; if there is no nominee, or the nominee has died, the legal heirs must establish title through a succession certificate, letters of administration, or probate. Crucially, the 2024 Master Circular bars insurers from rejecting or closing a claim "for want of documents or for delayed intimation" — they must ask for what they need and proceed.
8. Death during an excluded activity. Pure term plans carry very few exclusions, but riders and some plans exclude death during war, criminal acts, intoxication, hazardous sports, or non-commercial aviation. These are contractual exclusions in the policy wording approved by IRDAI, so they vary plan to plan — read your own document.
Why a 99% Claim Settlement Ratio Can Still Hide a Problem
Every insurer advertises its Claim Settlement Ratio (CSR) — the share of death claims it settled by number in a year. Far fewer talk about the Amount Settlement Ratio (ASR) — the share settled by rupee value. The two diverge when a company pays a great many small claims and refuses a handful of large ones. And the large ones are precisely the high-cover term policies a family's survival plan rests on.
The industry numbers make the gap visible. For 2024-25, the IRDAI Annual Report (Table I.11) records individual death claims settled at 97.82% by number but 96.29% by amount, with 1.01% repudiated by count and 2.74% by value. The report's own footnote is striking in its candour: repudiated claims, it says, are those that cannot be considered under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938. In other words, the entire universe of rejected claims is, by the regulator's own definition, the Section 45 universe this article is about.
| Individual death claims, FY 2024-25 | By number | By amount |
| Claims paid | 97.82% | 96.29% |
| Claims repudiated | 1.01% | 2.74% |
| Claims rejected / unclaimed / pending | ~1.17% | ~0.97% |
So how should you actually read these ratios before buying? Three rules. First, look at both CSR and ASR: a 99.5% CSR paired with a 95% ASR is a quiet signal that the insurer settles small claims and contests large ones. Second, look at a three-year average, not a single flattering year. Third, remember that IRDAI publishes blended figures across term, endowment, ULIP and whole-life — there is no separately published term-only ratio, and term repudiation rates run higher than the headline because the sums are larger and the relationships shorter. A sensible benchmark: CSR above 98% and ASR above 95%, sustained over three years.
What the Courts Now Say — the Pendulum Has Swung Toward Families
For decades the doctrine was stern. Life insurance is a contract of uberrima fides — utmost good faith — and the foundational case, Mithoolal Nayak v LIC, AIR 1962 SC 814, set a three-part test for repudiation: the statement was false, it was on a material matter, and it was made fraudulently with knowledge of its falsity. Later cases tightened the screws — Satwant Kaur Sandhu v New India Assurance, (2009) 8 SCC 316, held that anything the proposal form asks is presumed material; P.C. Chacko v LIC, (2008) 1 SCC 321, reaffirmed the duty to disclose; and Reliance Life v Rathod (2019) applied it to bury a claim over an undisclosed prior policy.
But the recent line has shifted the balance back toward policyholders, and any family fighting a rejection today should know it. In Mahakali Sujatha v Future Generali India Life Insurance, 2024 INSC 296 (decided 10 April 2024), the Supreme Court held that the burden of proving non-disclosure and that it was fraudulent rests squarely on the insurer, and it read ambiguous proposal-form wording against the company that drafted it. Then in Mahaveer Sharma v Exide Life Insurance, 2025 INSC 268 (decided 25 February 2025), the Court held that failing to mention some smaller policies was not a material fact where a large policy had been disclosed and the omission would not have changed a prudent insurer's decision — and ordered the sum assured paid with 9% interest.
The arc is clear. Courts still expect honest disclosure. But they no longer treat every blank box as fatal; they now demand that the insurer prove the omission was both material and, where alleged, fraudulent. That shift is the legal backbone of any genuine claim that has been wrongly refused.
If a Genuine Claim Is Rejected — the Four-Step Escalation
A rejection letter feels final. It is not. There is a free, ordered escalation path, and at the third rung the decision stops being the insurer's to make. Take the case of Lakshmi, a widow in Madurai whose ₹40 lakh term claim was refused on a vague "non-disclosure" ground months after her husband's death. She did not need a lawyer; she needed the ladder.
| A rejection letter is the start of a process, not the end of one. All four rungs are free or near-free, and the Ombudsman's award is binding on the insurer. |
Step 1 — the insurer's Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO). Every insurer must designate one. Put the complaint in writing or through the insurer's portal; under the 2024 Master Circular the insurer must acknowledge and respond within 14 days. Get the rejection reason in writing — you will need it.
Step 2 — IRDAI's Bima Bharosa portal (bimabharosa.irdai.gov.in), the regulator's grievance system, with a toll-free line on 155255 or 1800-4254-732. Lodging here routes a monitored ticket to the insurer and starts a clock IRDAI tracks. It is free and takes minutes.
Step 3 — the Insurance Ombudsman, under the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017. This is the rung that matters most. You can approach the Ombudsman once you have complained to the insurer and either had no reply for a month or an unsatisfactory one; the complaint must be filed within one year of the rejection. There is no fee and no lawyer needed. The Ombudsman must pass an Award within three months, the Award is binding on the insurer, it must be honoured within 30 days, and non-compliance attracts a penalty of ₹5,000 per day under the 2021 amendment. The catch — and it is a real one for big policies — is the jurisdictional ceiling: ₹50 lakh of the loss payable, under Rule 17(3). There are 18 Ombudsman centres across the country; you file with the one whose territory covers your address.
Step 4 — the Consumer Commission or civil court. For claims above ₹50 lakh, or where the Ombudsman route fails, go to the consumer commissions under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — District (up to ₹50 lakh), State (₹50 lakh to ₹2 crore), or National (above ₹2 crore), within two years of the cause of action. This is where the *Mahakali Sujatha* and *Mahaveer Sharma* precedents do their heaviest lifting.
One practical note that changes the order for big policies: if your sum assured is above ₹50 lakh, the Ombudsman cannot award the full amount, so it is often faster to go straight to the State Commission rather than lose a year first. (A reform is pending — the Draft Insurance Ombudsman (Amendment) Rules, 2025 propose to remove the ₹50 lakh ceiling and add penalties for harassment — but until notified, the ₹50 lakh limit stands.)
How to Make Your Own Claim Almost Impossible to Reject
Everything above is about claims that go wrong. Here is how to make sure yours does not — five moves, in order of importance.
| Move | Why it works |
| Fill the proposal form yourself, and disclose everything | Defeats the No. 1 ground (Section 45(4)). The extra premium for a disclosed illness or tobacco is trivial against a refused crore. |
| Keep written proof of what you disclosed | Save the filled form, health questionnaire and medical reports. Mahakali Sujatha (2024) turned partly on the insurer's failure to produce documents. |
| Cross the three-year line — pay on time | After three years Section 45(1) makes the policy incontestable. Never let it lapse; revival restarts the clock. |
| Tell your nominee where the policy is | A claim no one knows to file is a claim that becomes unclaimed money. Register the nominee under Section 39 and keep the documents together. |
| Match cover to income honestly | Stay within the insurer's income multiple so financial underwriting cannot be reopened later as a misstatement. |
If you take one thing from this article, take this: the term insurance claim is won or lost the day you fill the proposal form, not the day it is filed. Honesty on that form, premiums paid past the third year, and a nominee who knows where to look — that combination makes your policy do exactly what you bought it to do.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does a term insurance claim get rejected in India?
The dominant reason is non-disclosure or misstatement of a material fact on the proposal form — an undisclosed illness, tobacco habit, prior policy, or inflated income — used by the insurer under Section 45(4) of the Insurance Act, 1938 within the first three years. Other grounds include policy lapse, suicide within 12 months, financial-underwriting mismatch, and documentation gaps. After three years, Section 45(1) makes the policy incontestable on any ground whatsoever.
Can a term insurance claim be rejected after 3 years in India?
Almost never. Under Section 45(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938, no life policy can be called in question on any ground after three years from issuance, commencement of risk, revival, or rider addition, whichever is later. The only surviving exception is that no contract existed at all — for example, identity fraud or an impersonated medical exam. A genuine policy more than three years old is effectively rejection-proof.
What is the most common reason for term insurance claim rejection?
Non-disclosure of a material fact — most often undisclosed tobacco use, a pre-existing illness like diabetes or hypertension, or a prior insurance policy. The Supreme Court treated an undisclosed existing policy as material in Reliance Life Insurance v Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod (2019). Disclosing these costs a little more premium and protects the entire claim.
What are the 5 main reasons a term insurance claim may be denied?
The five recurring grounds are: (1) non-disclosure of a material fact — a hidden illness, tobacco habit or prior policy; (2) policy lapse from a missed premium after the grace period; (3) suicide within the first 12 months; (4) misstatement of age or income on the proposal form; and (5) death during an excluded activity such as a hazardous sport or a criminal act. Non-disclosure on the proposal form is by far the most common. After three years, Section 45(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938 blocks rejection on the first four grounds entirely.
Why does a term insurance application get rejected before the policy is issued?
That is a different stage — an application or underwriting decline, not a claim rejection. An insurer may decline to issue cover, or load the premium, for a serious pre-existing illness, a very high-risk occupation, income that does not support the sum assured, an adverse family medical history, or a condition found in the pre-policy medical tests. A declined application is not a black mark against a future claim; it is the insurer choosing not to take the risk upfront. Disclosing fully and applying for cover realistic for your income avoids most declines.
Does term insurance cover suicide in India?
Yes, after 12 months. For policies issued or revived on or after 1 January 2014, death by suicide within 12 months of commencement or revival pays the nominee at least 80% of premiums paid (for non-linked term plans), not the full sum assured. After 12 months, suicide is covered like any other death and the full sum assured is payable. Reviving a lapsed policy restarts the 12-month clock.
What happens if I forgot to disclose a pre-existing disease?
Within the first three years, an undisclosed material illness can be a valid ground to repudiate under Section 45(4) — but only if the insurer proves it had a direct bearing on the risk and that it would not have issued the policy had it known. After three years, it cannot be used at all. The safest fix is to disclose fully at the proposal stage; you generally do not need to report a condition diagnosed after the policy was issued.
Is a high claim settlement ratio enough to choose an insurer?
No. The claim settlement ratio measures claims paid by number; check the amount settlement ratio too, which measures them by value. A high CSR with a lower ASR suggests the insurer pays many small claims but contests large ones — exactly the high-cover term claims that matter. For FY 2024-25 the industry settled 97.82% by number but 96.29% by amount. Look for both above benchmark across a three-year average.
What can my family do if a genuine term claim is rejected?
Escalate in four steps, all free or near-free: first the insurer's Grievance Redressal Officer (14-day reply), then the IRDAI Bima Bharosa portal (155255), then the Insurance Ombudsman, whose award is binding on the insurer but is capped at ₹50 lakh, and finally the consumer commission for higher-value claims. The Ombudsman complaint must be filed within one year of rejection, needs no lawyer, and costs nothing.
Does a term insurance claim get rejected if I miss one premium?
Not immediately. You have a grace period — 15 days for monthly premiums and 30 days for quarterly, half-yearly or annual — during which cover continues and a death claim is still paid after adjusting the unpaid premium. Only if the policy lapses after the grace period and is not revived does the claim fail. A lapsed policy can usually be revived within five years, but revival restarts the three-year incontestability and suicide clocks.
Closing
Term insurance is, statistically, one of the most reliable promises in Indian finance — paid the overwhelming majority of the time, quickly and without drama. The rejections that make headlines are not evidence that the system is rigged; they are evidence that a small number of policies were built on a flaw planted years before the claim. Almost always, the flaw is a proposal form filled carelessly or filled by someone else, and a clock that had not yet crossed three years.
You control both. Fill the form yourself, tell the truth on every one of those eight fields, keep the proof, pay your premiums past the third year, and make sure the person who will file the claim knows the policy exists. Do that, and Section 45 stops being the insurer's weapon and becomes your family's shield. An hour of honesty at the start is worth more than any argument at the end.
Further Reading on Finance Guided
The Term Insurance and Insurance Rights posts most closely related to this guide are linked below.
▸ When the nominee dies before the policyholder — what happens to a term payout if your named nominee predeceases you, and the fix that prevents a court fight.
▸ Nominee vs legal heir difference in India — why a nominee receives the money but does not always own it, across insurance, bank and mutual fund.
▸ How to file a complaint against an insurer on IRDAI Bima Bharosa — the grievance portal steps, what to attach, and the timeline the insurer is bound to.
▸ The insurance free-look period — cancelling a policy you regret and getting a full refund within 30 days.
Primary Sources Cited in This Article
· Insurance Act, 1938 — Section 45 (as substituted by the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, w.e.f. 26 December 2014): 45(1) three-year incontestability; 45(2) fraud within three years; 45(3) protections for the insured; 45(4) material misstatement, materiality test and 90-day premium refund; 45(5) age. Section 39 (nomination)
· Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015
· IRDAI (Protection of Policyholders' Interests, Operations and Allied Matters of Insurers) Regulations, 2024 — notified 20 March 2024, in force 1 April 2024
· IRDAI Master Circular on Protection of Interests of Policyholders dated 5 September 2024 (Ref. IRDAI/PP&GR/CIR/MISC/117/9/2024) — claim settlement timelines (15 / 45 / 7 days), delay interest (bank rate + 2%, suo moto), 30-day free-look, "legally tenable evidence" standard, and the bar on rejection for want of documents
· IRDAI (Non-Linked Insurance Products) Regulations, 2013 — standardised 12-month suicide clause, w.e.f. 1 January 2014
· IRDAI Annual Report 2024-25, Table I.11 — individual death claims settled 97.82% by number, 96.29% by amount
· Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017 (as amended 2021) — Rule 17(3) ₹50 lakh ceiling; binding award within three months; ₹5,000 per day non-compliance penalty; 18 Ombudsman centres
· Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — District, State and National Commission pecuniary limits
· Mithoolal Nayak v LIC, AIR 1962 SC 814; LIC v Asha Goel, (2001) 2 SCC 160; P.C. Chacko v LIC, (2008) 1 SCC 321; Satwant Kaur Sandhu v New India Assurance, (2009) 8 SCC 316; Reliance Life Insurance v Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod, (2019) 6 SCC 175; Manmohan Nanda v United India Assurance, (2022) 4 SCC 582; Mahakali Sujatha v Future Generali India Life Insurance, 2024 INSC 296; Mahaveer Sharma v Exide Life Insurance, 2025 INSC 268
· Draft Insurance Ombudsman (Amendment) Rules, 2025 (proposed removal of the ₹50 lakh ceiling) — Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services
Disclaimer: This article is for general information and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or insurance advice. Term insurance claim outcomes depend on the specific policy wording, the proposal-form disclosures, the facts of the death, the insurer, and the state, and the rules summarised here are necessarily general. Statutory sections, regulations, case citations, and settlement figures are stated to the best of the author's knowledge as of 27 May 2026 and may be amended; the IRDAI Master Circular is principle-based and depends partly on each insurer's board-approved policies. The author is not a lawyer or an IRDAI-registered adviser; before buying, disclosing on, or contesting a policy, read your own policy document and consult a qualified professional, and preserve all original documents and proof of disclosure. FinanceGuided.com does not sell insurance, accepts no commissions, recommends no insurer by name, and runs no paid placements. Reproduction of any portion of this article requires written permission from the publisher.
Dinesh Kumar S
Founder & Author — Finance Guided · B.Sc. Mathematics, M.Sc. Information Technology · Chennai, Tamil Nadu
Dinesh writes a regulation-reader's column on Indian personal finance — the kind where every claim is anchored to the actual Act, section, regulation, or reported case it comes from. His standing rule: if a rule cannot be traced to a primary source by section and date, it does not enter the article.
Source authorities routinely cited: the Insurance Act, IRDAI, the Insurance Ombudsman, the Supreme Court of India, SEBI, RBI, CBDT and EPFO. Finance Guided takes no commissions, runs no paid placements, and recommends no specific product by name. Articles are journalism, not advice; consult a qualified professional before acting on anything you read here.
0 Comments