March 6, 2026, India – A major controversy has erupted surrounding the claims settlement practices of Bajaj Life Insurance Limited. An investigation by the Journalism News Network has uncovered a case involving a denied death claim that raises serious questions about corporate ethics, legal compliance, and the “fiduciary duty” of insurance giants toward terminally ill policyholders.
The Case Fact Sheet
-
Policy Type: Unit Linked Insurance Plan (ULIP).
-
Sum Assured: ₹10,00,010.
-
Critical Event: Policyholder diagnosed with Cancer in January 2025 (Policy fully in-force). The Policy holder diagnosis (January 10, 2025) occurred well after the policy’s inception. As the condition was not pre-existing at the time of purchase and the policy was in-force at the time of diagnosis cancer (which resulted into his death). Any repudiation of the full benefit lacks a contractual and legal basis under prevailing IRDAI regulations
-
The Conflict: 3rd premium missed in April 2025 due to medical incapacity; policyholder died in July 2025.
-
The Payout: Bajaj Life processed only ₹2,20,463 (Discontinuance Value) after non-responding for 3 months, refusing to pay the remaining ₹7,83,355 of the life cover..
The Evidence
Bajaj Life claims the policy “automatically” discontinued on May 5, 2025. However, on July 26, 2025—one day after the policyholder’s death—the company sent an official email demanding a “Renewal Premium” to “keep Life Goals on track.”
The Legal Argument: Under the Doctrine of Estoppel, a company cannot claim a contract is “dead” to avoid a claim while simultaneously treating it as “alive” to collect money. By soliciting a renewal premium in late July, the company effectively affirmed the subsistence of the risk cover.
Regulatory Breaches and “Technical Traps”
Journalism News Network investigation reveals three primary grounds on which the insurer’s rejection is being challenged:
-
Violation of IRDAI Regulation 13: Under the 2019 ULIP regulations, discontinuance is not “automatic.” Insurers are statutorily required to send a 30-day notice giving the policyholder options. The July 26th 2025 official reminder proves the company was still in the “reminder phase,” meaning the legal discontinuance process was never concluded.
-
Medical Incapacity: The Insurance Ombudsman has historically ruled in favor of nominees when a lapse occurs during a terminal illness. The diagnosis occurred while the policy was active, making the “technical lapse” a result of incapacity rather than intent.
-
Procedural Deficiency: The insurer failed to provide clear written reasons or calculation sheets for the partial settlement for over four months, violating IRDAI Protection of Policyholders’ Interests Regulations, 2017.
- 3 Months Delay in responding: The company’s claims department remained largely non-responsive for 3 months despite repeated follow-ups and a formal grievance escalation.
Protected: A Case Study on Bajaj Life’s Claims Payout Ethics