Senior Citizen, Five-Year ULIP and an ‘Almost Guaranteed’ 11% Return
A 68-year-old retired school principal has a fixed deposit of ₹40 lakh maturing next week. His pension is ₹28,000 a month, and he needs about ₹15,000 a month from savings to meet household expenses; he also wants to keep ₹5 lakh for medical emergencies. At a bank branch he is profiled as ‘conservative’ with a three-year horizon. A relationship manager recommends a five-year unit-linked insurance plan with annual premium of ₹8 lakh, illustrated return of 11%, a lock-in of five years, and a 3% exit charge after lock-in; the RM says the return is ‘almost guaranteed’. The customer signs after a 20-minute discussion. Two years later he needs ₹6 lakh for bypass surgery and is told the surrender value is about 30% below the premiums paid. His daughter complains that the bank mis-sold a product that did not match his liquidity and risk profile.
1. Evaluate the suitability of the recommendation. Identify the specific breaches and the evidence you would rely on.
Read the worked answer
The recommendation is unsuitable on the stated facts. The customer is 68, conservative, has a three-year horizon, needs regular income and must keep an emergency reserve. A five-year lock-in product with market-linked returns, exit charges and an annual premium of ₹8 lakh consumes 20% of his corpus and reduces liquidity. The statement that an 11% illustrated return is ‘almost guaranteed’ is a misrepresentation: illustrations are not guarantees, and the product is not a fixed deposit.
The likely breaches are failure of suitability, mis-selling, inadequate need analysis, concentration risk, and failure to preserve an emergency fund. The branch should have documented the risk profile, income needs, liquidity needs, product features, charges, lock-in and commission. Evidence includes the risk-profile form, need-analysis sheet, benefit illustration, product brochure, signed declarations, call recording if any, transaction advice, commission disclosure and the customer’s complaint. A 20-minute discussion for an ₹8 lakh annual commitment to a senior citizen is itself a warning sign. The RM’s oral assurance may override the printed disclaimers in a mis-selling assessment.
2. What remediation should the bank offer, and how should it handle the complaint?
Read the worked answer
The bank should treat the complaint as a senior-citizen mis-selling grievance, acknowledge it in writing and stop any further premium debits if possible. It should retrieve the risk profile, need analysis, illustrations, recordings and commission details, and obtain the insurer’s policy and surrender-value calculation. If the evidence shows the product was sold against the recorded conservative profile or with a false assurance of guaranteed returns, the bank should facilitate cancellation or suitable redress, including refund of charges or compensation for the surrender loss where warranted. It should not force the customer to bear the entire loss because he signed the form.
The complaint should be escalated to compliance and the insurer, with a clear timeline. The bank should explain the outcome in simple language and offer a suitable alternative for the remaining corpus, keeping liquidity and income needs in mind. It should also review the RM’s conduct, check whether commission targets influenced advice, and consider disciplinary or training action. Root-cause analysis should cover senior-citizen sales, product approvals and complaint trends. If the customer is dissatisfied, the banking-ombudsman route should be explained.
3. What product mix would have been more appropriate, and what process controls would prevent recurrence?
Read the worked answer
A more suitable structure would first keep about ₹5 lakh in a savings account, liquid fixed deposit or comparable liquid instrument for medical emergencies. The monthly income need of ₹15,000 could be met through a ladder of fixed deposits or a senior-citizen monthly-income scheme, subject to eligibility and limits, with part of the corpus in short-duration debt products if the risk profile permits. Any market-linked investment should be limited to a small portion, clearly explained, with a horizon longer than three years and no false assurance. Liquidity, capital protection and regular income should dominate the allocation.
Process controls include documented risk profiling and need analysis, a product-suitability matrix, mandatory disclosure of charges and commissions, a cooling-off period, dual verification for senior citizens, call recording for higher-value sales, and a ban on words such as ‘guaranteed’ for non-guaranteed products. Sales should not be incentivised solely on premium or commission. Complaints and surrender patterns should be audited, and staff should be trained to distinguish deposits from insurance and market-linked products. The customer should receive a simple summary of lock-ins, risks and exit costs before signing.