Lately new types of malice are being heard about. The first is that a listed insurance company has started to reject health insurance claims. Some rarely invoked clauses are commonly applied. Two of these are "reasonable expenses" and treatment to be taken in a network hospital, unless in case of emergency. Reducing claims helps insurers protect the interests of their shareholders. Less claims paid means more profits, which can be shared with their shareholders. Policyholders have been accustomed to claiming reimbursement for treatment availed at non-network hospitals. In the absence of any pricing guidelines for hospitals, a patient has very little bargaining power with a hospital. These are facts well known to insurers. That's why they have never penalised policyholders for these actions. How valid is an insurer's stand to ignore such precedents?

The other malice we hear is that flushed with money raised from venture funds, some insurtech firms are getting a bit ahead of themselves. Some of these are underwriting risks and directly offering their own versions of insurance policies to customers. By doing so, they collect and pocket the premiums themselves. They act like an insurance firm selling policies. Only problem is these firms are not insurance companies. They are merely distributors, unlicensed at that. To actively solicit business, one needs a broking or agency licence from IRDAI. However, some of these firms are not recognised by IRDAI, yet solicit business. Fortunately here, IRDAI has started to take note. In the meantime, policyholders are exposed to an unlicensed entity selling insurance.