Editor’s Note — 15th April 2026:
Bajaj Life Insurance Limited was repeatedly requested to address three specific legal and regulatory pillars: the Doctrine of Estoppel, IRDAI Regulation 13, and the documented terminal diagnosis of the Insured dated 10th January 2025. The company issued three identical, automated responses but failed to engage with these three legal points.
Subsequently, the insurer issued a legal notice (7th April 2026) claiming Rs. 10 crores in damages and demanding a global takedown of news articles. Journalism News Network rejects these demands. Our reporting is based on documented evidence. Notably, the insurer’s own legal counsel’s assertions regarding the claim timeline are directly contradicting the company’s own prior correspondence.
Following our complaint, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) has formally intervened, instructing Bajaj Life Insurance as follows: ““Please find herewith attached a reminder from the complainant on the complaint registered with IRDAI Token No (04-26-009249). You are hereby advised to resolve the same immediately, inform the applicant and duly update the status in Bima Bharosa.”
We remain committed to fair reporting; any factually substantiated response from the insurer will be published in full alongside this report.
March 9, 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.
Insurer (Bajaj Life Insurance grievance team) (Ref: Rohit Gupta) has issued three consecutive, identical responses (below) that fail to address the documented legal merits of this case. Their continued “mechanical rejection” constitutes a separate violation of IRDAI Protection of Policyholders’ Interests Regulations, 2017.
Greetings from Bajaj Life Insurance Limited
With reference to your bellow email regarding claim of policy number 0554137267, we wish to reiterate the below points:
· The last premium for the policy was paid on 3rd April 2024, and the policy was subsequently discontinued on 5th May 2025 due to non‑payment of premiums. Therefore, the policy remained in a discontinued status as on the date of death, i.e., 25th July 2025
· Further, please refer the below discontinuance feature mentioned in the attached policy document :
o “On Discontinuance of Regular Premiums due during the Lock-in Period, the Policy will be converted to a Discontinued Life Policy, immediately & automatically, (without any risk cover, Loyalty Benefits, ROMC (Return of Mortality Charge), Guaranteed Benefit) at the end of the Grace Period, and the Regular Premium Fund Value less the Discontinuance/Surrender Charge along with Top up Premium Fund Value, if any, will be transferred to the Discontinued Life Policy Fund.”
o “If the Policy is a Discontinued Policy as on the date of death of the Life Assured, the Death Benefit payable will be the Discontinuance Value as on the date of receipt of intimation of death of the Life Assured.”
· We also request you to please find the attached fund value statement basis which the discontinued value was derived and the claim was paid
Hence, we would want to inform you that the claim was paid as per the terms and conditions as applicable in the policy.
Further, we request you to please share your contact number and a convenient time to speak to you regarding the concern.
We thank you for your patience and support and in case of any assistance, please feel free to write us back.
Regards
Rohit Gupta
Deputy Manager – Escalation & Grievance Management
Bajaj Life Insurance Limited
(Formerly known as Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited)
Protected: A Case Study on Bajaj Life’s Claims Payout Ethics
Related news on The Times of India: Bajaj Allianz guilty of deficiency in service
In the interest of journalistic fairness and public transparency, all parties mentioned in this report are invited to submit formal feedback. We are committed to a balanced record; therefore, any factually substantiated responses or documented evidence provided by the parties will be published alongside this report in its entirety.
Submit your review | |