The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India passed an enforcement order imposing a ₹1 crore penalty on an insurer following a remote inspection that revealed multiple regulatory violations relating to outsourcing, commission payments, and corporate governance. The Authority found that substantial payouts made between FY 2018–19 and FY 2020–21 to related parties, unlicensed entities, an individual agent of another insurer, and corporate agents were mischaracterised as advertising or consumer awareness expenses but effectively functioned as unauthorised commissions and solicitation payments. The insurer failed to conduct due diligence, avoid conflicts of interest, obtain mandatory approvals, maintain arm’s-length arrangements, perform cost–benefit analysis, or report these engagements as outsourcing, despite their materiality. The activities were held to fall within the scope of outsourcing and were subject to governance and reporting requirements. The Authority concluded that the arrangements lacked transparency, violated multiple IRDAI regulations and governance guidelines, and reflected weak internal controls. Directions were issued to place the order before the Board, submit an action-taken report, and remit the penalty within the stipulated period.
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India
Ref. IRDAI/E&C/ORD/MISC/145/12/2025
Order in the matter of M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
1. Based on the
1.1. Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) reference No. IRDAI / ENF / 2023 / 711 / SCN/ LR / 077 dated 29th November, 2024 issued to M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (hereafter ‘Insurer’ or ‘Company’) in connection with a remote inspection conducted by the Authority.
1.2. Submissions made by the Insurer vide email and letter dated 03rd January, 2025 in response to the aforesaid SCN.
1.3. Submissions made by the Insurer during the personal hearing held on 05th
March, 2025 at 10.30 AM, by the panel of Two Whole Time Members of the Authority- Shri Deepak Sood, Member (Non-life) and Shri Rajay Kumar Sinha, Member (F&I).
1.4. Further submissions made by Insurer vide email dated 21st March, 2025.
2. Background
2.1. The Authority had conducted a remote inspection of the insurer from 27th December, 2021 to 31st December, 2021. The inspection report, inter alia, revealed certain violations of provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 and Regulations, Guidelines and Circulars issued thereunder.
2.2. A copy of the inspection report was forwarded to the Insurer on 27th January, 2022 seeking their response and the response was received vide email dated 25th February, 2022.
2.3. On examining the submissions made by the Insurer, show cause notice (SCN) was issued on 29th November, 2024. The Insurer replied to the SCN vide email and letter dated 03rd January, 2025.
2.4. As requested by the Insurer, personal hearing was granted to the Insurer on 05th March, 2025 by the panel of two Whole Time Members comprising of Shri Deepak Sood, Member (Non-Life) and Shri Rajay Kumar Sinha, Member (F&I).
2.5. On behalf of the Insurer, Shri Rakesh Jain (Chief Executive Officer), Shri Hemant Kumar Jain (Chief Financial Officer) and Shri Prasun Pratik (Chief Compliance Officer) and on behalf of the Authority, Shri R K Sharma (Chief General Manager), Shri T Venkateswara Rao (General Manager), Shri Sanjay Kumar Verma (General Manager), Shri Manoj Kumar Asiwal (Deputy General Manager), Shri Saket Gupta (Manager) and Shri Atul Gupta (Asst. Manager) attended the hearing.
2.6. The submissions made by the Insurer vide its email dated 25th February, 2022, submission made after SCN vide email and letter dated 03rd January, 2025 and submission during the personal hearing on 05th March, 2025 and those made vide email dated 21st March, 2025 have been carefully considered by the Authority.
3. Charges-1, 2, 3 and 4
3.1. Charge-1 (Observation-1)
3.1.1. Violation of-
a) Section 40(2) of Insurance Act, 1938;
b) Regulation 26(1) & 59(1) of IRDAI (Insurance Brokers) Regulations, 2018;
c) Regulation 15(a), (c) & (d) of the IRDAI (Outsourcing of Activities by Indian Insurers) Regulations, 2017;
d) Regulation 21 of IRDAI (Outsourcing of Activities by Indian Insurers) Regulations, 2017; and
e) Clause 6 of Guidelines for Corporate Governance for insurers in India with Ref: IRDA / F& A / GDL / CG / 100 / 05 / 2016 dated 18.05.2016.
3.1.2. Inspection Observation-1
3.1.2.1. The Insurer made pay outs of approximately Rs.5.16 Crores during FY 2018-19 to Glitterbug Technologies Pvt Ltd (GTPL) the parent company of Coverfox Insurance Broking Pvt Ltd (CIBPL).
3.1.2.2. From the invoices furnished by the insurer, it was observed that the services for which GTPL raised invoices had no bearing with the scope of services specified in the Agreement and were paid on account of “Consumer Awareness Programme”. It was also observed that one of the directors in GTPL named Mr Sanjib Jha (DIN 02277191) was holding directorship in CIBPL.
3.1.3. Summary of Insurer’s Submissions:
3.1.3.1. Insurer submitted that the payments made to GTPL were towards advertising display and professional services for creating consumer awareness by way of displaying the company’s brand & product. These activities do not involve solicitation of insurance business or the promotion of specific policies and are not activities expected to be carried out internally. Therefore, these activities cannot be classified as falling within the ambit of Outsourcing Regulations.
3.1.3.2. The activities performed by GTPL align with the auxiliary and support functions such as marketing, branding and advertisement logistics and are not considered core functions of an insurer and hence not expected to be performed necessarily in-house. These advertisements focus on branding and awareness, not solicitation, making them exempt from being classified as outsourcing. The activities enumerated in the agreement with GTPL qualify as ‘advertisement’ as per the IRDAI (Insurance Advertisement and Disclosure) Regulations, 2021. These activities fall within the scope of ‘advertisement’ rather than ‘outsourcing’ and are well within the regulatory framework that allows the insurers to engage third parties for such activities.
3.2. Charge-2 (Observation-2)
3.2.1. Violation of-
a) Section 40(2) and 42(2) of Insurance Act, 1938;
b) Regulation 8(2)(a) of IRDAI (Appointment of Insurance Agents) Regulations, 2016;
c) Regulation 9, 10, 14(vi) and 21 of IRDAI (Outsourcing of activities by Indian Insurers) Regulations, 2017; and
d) Clause 6 of Guidelines for Corporate Governance for insurers in India with Ref: IRDA/ F& A/GDL/CG/100/05/2016 dated 18.05.2016.
3.2.2. Inspection Observation-2
3.2.2.1. Insurer made arbitrary pay outs to an individual who is agent of Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The payments of approximately Rs.1.14 Cr, Rs.27 Lakhs and Rs.28.67 Lakhs were made by the insurer to the said agent during the financial year 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 respectively.
3.2.2.2. Based on the invoices submitted during inspection for the said three financial years, it was found that the invoices were raised predominantly for rendering services by the agent in connection with the customer awareness programme and at times for rendering services relating to organising of events.
3.2.2.3. It was evident from the advertisement banners and standees that the name of the agent was advertised alongside RGICL, as if the policies of RGICL are sold by the agent being a licensed agent / intermediary / insurance intermediary of RGICL.
3.2.2.4. It is, therefore, concluded that the payments made to the agent were not actually for usage of places of business for advertisement of RGICL products and were towards payments for solicitation of insurance by an unlicensed entity.
3.2.3. Summary of Insurer’s Submissions:
3.2.3.1. Insurer submitted that the payments made to the agent were for educating and spreading awareness of company’s insurance products and to promote the company’s brand image and not towards procuring insurance business for the company.
3.2.3.2. The mere presence of said individual agent’s name alongside the Insurer on these materials does not automatically imply that she acted as an insurance agent for the company. While her name appears on the banners and standees, there is no mention of any agent code or indication that she was involved in the sale of insurance policies.
3.2.3.3. The insurer submitted that the said individual has not violated any regulatory provision as she was not appointed as insurance agent to solicit business. The insurer obtained an affidavit from the said agent where she confirmed that she has performed the services/functions she contracted with the Company and those services were not for solicitation of insurance business from her clients/or other persons for Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. She asserts her right to any pursuit in addition to being an insurance agent of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Further, the insurer submitted that she was not their insurance agent and payments to her do not come under the purview of Section-40(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938.
3.2.3.4. Insurer further submitted that Section 40 deals with prohibition of making and receiving any payment by way of commission or otherwise for procuring business and in the present case there is no evidence or record which confers that the payments to the agent were towards procuring insurance business for the Company, hence there is no violation of Sec 40(1) and 40(2) of Insurance Act, 1938, rather the payments were to educate and spread awareness of company’s insurance products and to promote the Company’s brand image.
3.3. Charge-3 (Observation-3)
3.3.1. Violation of
a) Section 40(2) of Insurance Act, 1938;
b) Regulation 10 and 21 of IRDAI (Outsourcing of Activities by Indian Insurers) Regulations, 2017; and
c) Clause 6 of Guidelines for Corporate Governance for insurers in India with Ref: IRDA/ F& A/GDL/CG/100/05/2016 dated 18.05.2016
3.3.2. Inspection Observation-3
3.3.2.1. Insurer made payments of approximately Rs. 2.92 Cr, Rs. 5.33 Cr and Rs. 9.45 Lakhs during financial years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 respectively to an unlicensed entity, Suvidhaa Infoserve Pvt Ltd. purportedly for marketing and advertisement services under the terms of the agreement. However, on visiting the web page of SuvidhaaInfoserve (https://www.suvidhaa.com/) under the Services Tab (https://www.suvidhaa.com/services.html), it was observed that Suividhaa Infoserve was rendering services for general insurance and life insurance business. Further, in the website, inside “About Us” link under “Our Company” tab, it was stated that, inter alia, the company was engaged in collection of insurance renewal premium and there was no mention about the activities stated under scope of work in their Agreement with RGICL.
3.3.3. Summary of Insurer’s Submissions:
3.3.3.1. Insurer submitted that the payments made to Suvidhaa Infoserve were towards marketing and advertisement services under the terms of the agreement. The chartered document i.e. Memorandum of Association (MOA) of Suvidhaa, under point 10 of the ancillary objects, allows Suvidhaa to engage in the business of advertising & marketing.
3.3.3.2. As far as payments to M/s Suvidhaa Infoserve, GTPL and the individual agent are concerned, all the arrangements with these vendors helped insurance company in creating consumer awareness for insurance products which are in the greater interest of the policyholders and help the company to promote its brand and awareness of its products. These payments made to them are towards marketing and advertisement services under the terms of the agreement. It is noteworthy that the payments were made transparently and supported by necessary documentation and legally valid contracts. Since the activities to be performed were similar, the agreement would have similar scope. Accordingly, there should not be credence and cognizance to the suspicious without the reasonable existence of facts.
3.4. Charge-4 (Observation-4 and 5)
3.4.1. Violation of-
a) Section 40(2) of Insurance Act, 1938;
b) Regulation 5(d) & 6(c) of IRDAI (Payment of commission or remuneration or reward to insurance agents and intermediaries) Regulations, 2016;
c) Regulation 10, 14(vi) and 21 of IRDAI (Outsourcing of activities by Indian Insurers) Regulations, 2017; and
d) Clause 6 of Guidelines for Corporate Governance for insurers in India with Ref: IRDA/ F& A/GDL/CG/100/05/2016 dated 18.05.2016.
3.4.2. Inspection Observation-4 and 5
3.4.2.1. Insurer made payouts of approximately Rs. 2.89 Crores and Rs. 2.36 Crores to corporate agents – Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited (ABHFL) and Induslnd Bank Limited respectively, which were in the nature of other than corporate agency commission.
3.4.2.2. It may be noted that the revenue of these corporate agents from sources other than insurance commission are more than fifty percent of its total revenue and hence they were not eligible to receive any payments in form of rewards in view of Regulation 6(c) of IRDAI (Payment of commission or remuneration or reward to insurance agents and intermediaries) Regulations, 2016.
3.4.3. Summary of Insurer’s Submissions:
3.4.3.1. The Company entered into agreement with ABHFL for display material and signage which is a type of technique of outdoor advertisement. The company has not paid any amount except the legitimate commission allowed under the governing regulations and Act, after ABHFL acquired the Corporate Agency license.
3.4.3.2. They had engaged IndusInd bank for providing advisory services in relation to the proposed Strategic Sale of the Company, apart from Corporate Agency agreement. Insurer further submitted that there is no express prohibition under the Corporate Agency on the ability of the Insurer and the Corporate Agent to enter into contracts for specialized Services. Post personal hearing, the insurer submitted the agreement with IndusInd bank.
3.4.3.3. The insurer submitted that an insurance corporate agency regulations does not prohibit M/s ABHFL and IndusInd Bank to conduct its primary activity for which they are engaged. Moreover, the prohibition stated in outsourcing regulation-14(vi) means that subsidiary activity of these entities personnel and departments shall not be permitted or contracted for performing activities other than insurance activity. The question of eligibility of payment of reward and/or commission under Regulation-18(1) of IRDAI (Corporate Agency) Regulation, 2015 and violation of Regulations-5(d) and 6 (c) of IRDAI (Payment of Remuneration and Commission), Regulations, 2016 arises if both the entities were engaged to conduct their subsidiary insurance solicitation activities which is not the case. Corporate insurance activity is different from their primary activity.
3.4.3.4. The insurer further submitted that they outsource minimum activities to the benefit of exercising direct control in the performance of all its key functions and duties towards the policyholders, regulators and other stake holders. The insurer submitted that their Board reviews all the functions, risks and directs the management for a better and enhanced level of efficiency concerning protection of interest of policyholders, development of business plan and its execution, customer service and point of sale including claim settlement and insurance awareness.
3.4.3.5. During personal hearing, insurer stated that they did not consider the activities underlying the four charges, other than involving IndusInd Bank pay-out, as falling within the definition of outsourcing and hence they did not undertake the due diligence. Insurer further submitted that they shall put in place a formal vendor management policy, which is not available as on date, to oversee any expenses not covered by Outsourcing regulations.
3.5. Decision on Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4:
3.5.1. The insurer’s contention that the activities related to creating awareness, conducting of seminars and conferences for the purpose of advertisement fall outside the ambit of outsourcing is devoid of merit and inconsistent with Regulation 4(e) of the IRDAI (Outsourcing of Activities by Indian Insurers) Regulations, 2017, which broadly defines outsourcing as ‘the use of a third party to perform activities that would normally be undertaken by the insurer, now or in the future’. Activities, such as, customer connect programs, seminars, and public campaigns, directly affect prospect and policyholder engagement, brand reputation, and compliance communication- thus rendering them within the scope of outsourcing and subject to outsourcing governance requirements.
3.5.2. These activities play a crucial role by allowing insurer to communicate important information about products, regulatory changes and compliance requirements directly to the audience. Ensuring transparency and regulatory adherence are among the insurer’s primary responsibilities for protecting the interest of the policyholders. Thus, these activities are normally required to be undertaken by the insurer, and ignoring this fact goes against both the letter and spirit of the outsourcing regulations. The insurer’s argument that these activities are non-core or require specialized logistical capabilities does not exempt them from the regulatory outsourcing compliance. On the contrary, Regulation 10(iii) of IRDAI (Outsourcing of Activities by Indian Insurers) Regulations, 2017 explicitly mandates due diligence and risk management for such third-party engagements. Even non-core activities, including outsourced services that impact customer service, brand reputation, insurance awareness conferences/seminars, or marketing staff training, fall squarely within the regulatory outsourcing framework.
3.5.3. Regulation-5(viii) of the IRDAI (Outsourcing of Activities by Indian Insurers) Regulations, 2017 explicitly prohibits the outsourcing of ‘approving advertisement,’ which implies that other advertisement-related activities, though non-core, remain permissible for outsourcing. Needless to add, the objective of creating insurance awareness through insurance advertisements and conducting seminars and conferences is virtually identical to influence prospective policyholders’ decision-making by communicating product benefits, building trust, addressing market needs, ensuring customer persistency, and increasing insurance penetration. Since such activities are normally undertaken by the insurer, creating insurance awareness through advertisements or by conducting seminars and conferences fall squarely within the regulatory ambit of outsourcing and must comply with the applicable regulations.
3.5.4. The submission of the insurer failed to adequately demonstrate and provide evidences regarding the authenticity and legitimacy of the payments made to the Glitterbug Technologies Pvt. Ltd., an individual agent, Suvidhaa Infoserve and Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited (outsourcing vendors). The insurer has shown significant negligence in its process of selecting and managing these vendors for outsourcing services. These lapses raise concerns about the insurer’s due diligence procedures when it comes to outsourcing. The Insurer has violated Regulation 26 of IRDAI (Insurance Brokers) Regulations, 2018 by making payments to GTPL which are evidently extra pay-outs to CIBPL.
3.5.5. Insurer made extra pay-outs to the CIBPL by entering into an agreement with its parent company GTPL. It is to be noted that specific obligation is cast upon the insurer vide Regulation 15(a) of IRDAI (Outsourcing of Activities by Indian Insurers) Regulations, 2017 wherein the insurer shall endeavour to avoid conflict of interest by not ordinarily engaging a related party of an insurance intermediary for outsourcing. Even if there was no other alternative than to engage a related party of the broker, the insurer ought to have ensured ‘complete due diligence’ and maintained an arm’s-length distance in terms of their ‘conflict management policy,’ as per the ‘Outsourcing Policy.’ However, the insurer has failed to demonstrate the existence of such policies and their application in selecting the parent company of the Broker as the outsourcing partner.
3.5.6. The pay outs to GTPL were not commensurate with and were disproportionate to the level of exposure that insurer would get by advertising their products on the website of GTPL. There was no deliberation by the outsourcing committee of the insurer on the cost-benefit analysis of these transactions and the need to engage the named vendor. The insurer failed to produce detailed invoice expressing the work undertaken by the vendor.
3.5.7. The insurer has also failed to showcase that specific approval of “Outsourcing Committee” was obtained as mandated under Regulation 15(d) of IRDAI (Outsourcing of Activities by Indian Insurers) Regulations, 2017 for the activities outsourced to the related party (GTPL) of the Insurance Broker (CIBPL).
3.5.8. The insurer did not provide sufficient justification or a clear explanation for the criteria used to engage that specific individual agent of a different insurer for advertising and publishing services. Specifically, there was no transparency or clear rationale regarding how the agent was selected for this role, nor was there any indication of a structured process or evaluation used to assess agent’s qualifications or suitability for the task. The insurer failed to justify their decision to engage the agent and make substantial payments.
3.5.9. It has been found from both the website and the Annual Report of Suvidhaa Infoserve that the company was engaged in collection of insurance renewal premium and rendering services for insurance business without obtaining an insurance license from the Authority. Despite having the knowledge of the same, insurer did engage with Suvidhaa Infoserve for insurance related activities.
3.5.10. Moreover, the web page of the service provider does not indicate that they were engaged in the business of awareness and marketing as submitted by the insurer. Therefore, it is concluded that payments made to Suvidhaa Infoserve were nothing but unauthorised payment for solicitation of insurance policies which is violation of Section 40(1) of Insurance Act, 1938.
3.5.11. Payments made to Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd, a Corporate Agent of the Insurer is in contravention of Regulation 6(c) of IRDAI (Payment of commission or remuneration or reward to insurance agents and intermediaries) Regulations, 2016. It is also a violation of Regulation 14(vi) of Outsourcing Regulations, 2017 which provides that Insurance Agents, Insurance Intermediaries and other regulated entities of the Authority shall not be contracted for performing any activity other than those activities that are allowed under the respective regulations or guidelines. The Authority has not provided any relaxation to the Corporate Agents in this regard.
3.5.12. The main object clause of the above referred parties have been examined and it is observed that these entities are not primarily engaged in the activities for which the pay-outs have been made.
3.5.13. The submission of the insurer that the payments made to the said outsourcing vendors were genuine cannot be accepted as the insurer failed to provide any supporting evidences, be it approvals of the board committee for payments to the said vendors, location wise details where consumer awareness programmes were performed, or whether insurer obtained comparative quotation for similar services from other parties.
3.5.14. In the absence of such compliance, the insurer failed to: Classify these activities as outsourced; Assess the materiality of the outsourced activities; Undertake a cost-benefit analysis; and Effectively implement the Board-approved Outsourcing Policy. Accordingly, the insurer failed to implement the Board approved Outsourcing Policy which constitutes a violation of Regulations 8 (i) of the IRDAI (Outsourcing of Activities by Indian Insurers) Regulations, 2017.
3.5.15. The insurer has failed to showcase, the due diligence and cost benefit analysis done before engaging the service provider in terms of Regulation 10 of IRDAI (Outsourcing of Activities by Indian Insurers) Regulations, 2017. There is nothing on record to suggest that the insurer’s outsourcing committee deliberated on these issues.
3.5.16. The insurer has not reported the said payments under “Outsourcing Returns” in terms of Regulation 21 of IRDAI (Outsourcing of Activities by Indian Insurers) Regulations, 2017 despite the payments made for outsourcing being more than Rs. One Crore annually. Thus, the insurer avoided regulatory scrutiny and appropriate timely intervention and corrective measures.
3.5.17. It is essential to note here that it is not the regulatory intent to force the insurers for carrying out all the activities in house and not take assistance of third parties. The regulations only aim to safeguard the insurers from any risks emerging out of dependence on such third parties. Precisely, for this reason the disclosure and reporting requirements are to be strictly adhered to.
3.5.18. Therefore, it is concluded that these payments were essentially overriding commissions, and disguised as market awareness programs, advertising activities, and customer awareness initiatives to circumvent regulations. The scope of work is nearly identical across all vendors, suggesting that the agreements serve as a means to channel unauthorized pay-outs which are prohibited by the regulations. There is a lack of genuineness in these pay-outs and no transparency in the financial arrangements between the insurer and third parties.
3.5.19. Arguendo, even if the submission of insurer on outsourcing are accepted, such payments without transparency, accountability and proper documentation reflect poor internal controls and governance which are not in compliance with Clause 6 of Guidelines for Corporate Governance for insurers in India with Ref: IRDA/ F& A/GDL/CG/100/05/2016 dated 18.05.2016. Overall the insurer has exposed itself to an increasing outsourcing risk and has failed to show case that it has put adequate internal controls under Clause 6 of Guidelines for Corporate Governance for insurers in India.
3.5.20. In view of the above, in exercise of powers vested under Section 102 of Insurance Act, 1938, the Authority hereby imposes a penalty of Rs.1 Crore (Rupees-One Crore) for the violation of:
i. Regulation 26(1) of IRDAI (Insurance Brokers) Regulations, 2018;
ii. Regulation 6(c) of IRDAI (Payment of commission or remuneration or reward to insurance agents and intermediaries) Regulations, 2016;
iii. Regulation 10, 14(vi), 15(a), 15(c), 15(d) & 21 of the IRDAI (Outsourcing of Activities by Indian Insurers) Regulations, 2017 and;
iv. Clause 6 of Guidelines for Corporate Governance for insurers in India with Ref: IRDA / F& A / GDL / CG / 100 / 05 / 2016 dated 18.05.2016.
4. Summary of Decisions:
| Charge. No. |
Violation of Provisions | Decision |
|
1, 2, 3 and 4
|
1. Regulation 26(1) of IRDAI (Insurance Brokers) Regulations, 2018;
2. Regulation 6(c) of IRDAI (Payment of commission or remuneration or reward to insurance agents and intermediaries) Regulations, 2016; 3. Regulation 10, 14(vi), 15(a), 15(c), 15(d) & 21 of the IRDAI (Outsourcing of Activities by Indian Insurers) Regulations, 2017; 4. Clause 6 of Guidelines for Corporate Governance for insurers in India with Ref: IRDA/ F& A/GDL/CG/100/05/2016 dated 18.05.2016. |
Penalty of Rs. One Crore
|
5. The penalty amount of Rs. 1 Crore (Rupees One Crore) shall be remitted by debiting the shareholders’ account within a period of forty-five days from the date of receipt of this order through NEFT/RTGS (details of which will be communicated separately). An intimation of remittance shall be sent to Mr. Sanjay Verma, General Manager, Enforcement and Compliance Department of IRDAI at email id – enforcement@irdai.gov.in with a copy to accounts@irdai.gov.in.
6. Further,
a) The Order shall be placed before the Board of the Insurer in the upcoming Board Meeting and the Insurer shall provide a copy of the minutes of the discussion.
b) The Insurer shall submit an Action Taken Report to the Authority on direction given within 90 days from the date of this Order.
7. If the Insurer feels aggrieved by this Order, an appeal may be preferred to the Securities Appellate Tribunal as per the provisions of Section-110 of the Insurance Act, 1938.
Deepak Sood
Member (Non-Life)
Rajay Kumar Sinha
Member (F&I)
Place: Hyderabad
Date: 26th December, 2025
