Insurance tax break for savers must not subsidise sellers
Anusuya’s story shows how vulnerable savers can be misled into buying products they neither need nor understand.
She thought her Rs. 5 lakh fixed deposit was being renewed into a safe, tax-free deposit, but it was actually a life insurance policy with recurring premiums.
This is not an isolated case; it reflects a structural problem in how traditional insurance products are sold.
High upfront commissions push banks and agents to sell first and advise later.
While RBI’s proposed reforms on consent, refunds and compensation are welcome, they address only the selling process.
The deeper issue lies in product design, where costs absorb much of the saver’s return.
A comparable mutual fund may leave investors better off, even after tax.
In effect, the tax benefit meant for savers is often captured by insurers and distributors.
Truth be told, India must either rethink this tax concession or create a transparent mutual fund alternative with similar tax treatment.
A benefit meant for savers must not become a subsidy for sellers.
Insurance tax break for savers must not subsidise sellers Read More »