IRDAI Surveyor LOP common mistakes
IRDAI Surveyor LOP · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the surveyor's role as claim settlement authority and writing reports that recommend payment or rejection amounts as if the surveyor decides the claim.
Candidates carry over commercial loss-adjusting habits or assume the surveyor is the insurer's decision-maker, missing the regulatory distinction that the surveyor assesses and reports loss while the insurer settles the claim.
What to do instead
Memorise the statutory wording: the surveyor's duty is to assess and report the loss, and the report is an advisory input to the insurer's settlement decision. In every practice answer, phrase conclusions as 'assessed loss' and 'observations for the insurer's consideration', never as a settlement order.
Answering licensing questions with vague statements like 'a surveyor must be licensed' without stating the categories, the validity period, or the conditions for renewal and the consequences of lapse.
Candidates read the Regulations once and remember the concept but not the operative numbers and conditions, and exam questions frequently test the specific category, tenure and renewal mechanics.
What to do instead
Build a one-page table of licence categories, eligibility qualifications, validity, renewal timing and lapse consequences, and self-test by reciting it from memory before attempting scenario questions.
Confusing indemnity with betterment and applying depreciation to items that were already old, or failing to apply it where replacement cost exceeds indemnity.
Candidates apply depreciation mechanically to every claim without first establishing the basis of indemnity in the policy and the age and condition of the damaged property.
What to do instead
Before calculating, state the indemnity basis in the policy, the pre-loss condition and market value of the asset, then decide whether depreciation, salvage or betterment applies. Practise with worked examples where the same asset yields different deductions under different policy bases.
Ignoring policy conditions that operate as defences, such as contribution, subrogation, average or under-insurance clauses, and conditions precedent to liability.
Candidates focus on the peril and the damage and treat conditions as boilerplate, so they miss the clause that actually determines how much the insurer pays.
What to do instead
For every claim scenario, run a fixed checklist: cover trigger, exclusions, warranties and conditions precedent, sum insured adequacy and average, other insurances and contribution, and salvage and subrogation rights. Answer only after completing the checklist.
Assessing loss from documents alone and producing a report with no record of physical inspection, no measurements and no photographic or sample evidence.
Candidates treat the survey as a desk exercise and underestimate how much of the report's credibility rests on documented first-hand observation.
What to do instead
Structure every answer around evidence: what was inspected, what was measured, what samples or photographs were taken, who was interviewed. Where the scenario lacks such evidence, state explicitly what further inspection is required before assessment.
Presenting a loss figure without showing the calculation trail, so the amount cannot be traced from quantity, rate and deduction to the final assessed loss.
Candidates jump to the bottom line because they believe the number is what matters, but examiners award marks for the method and the reconciliation from gross loss to net payable.
What to do instead
Always show a computation table: gross loss, less salvage, less depreciation or betterment, less policy excess or deductible, plus applicable average or under-insurance reduction, equals net assessed loss. State each assumption used.
Writing reports that mix fact, opinion and recommendation without separating them, or that omit the date, time and place of inspection and the documents relied upon.
Candidates write narratively as they would in an internal email rather than in the structured format expected of a formal survey report.
What to do instead
Use a fixed report skeleton: instructions and scope, documents examined, inspection details, factual findings, cause of loss, quantum with computation, observations and recommendations. Keep each section to its own content and label opinions as opinions.
Investigating only the physical damage and ignoring fraud indicators such as late intimation, inconsistent statements, pre-existing damage or suspicious policy timing.
Candidates treat investigation as a technical inspection and do not consider that the surveyor's findings feed the insurer's fraud assessment.
What to do instead
Add a fraud-indicator screen to every investigation answer: timing of policy and loss, consistency of the insured's account, documentary corroboration, prior claims history and physical evidence of pre-existing or deliberate damage. Record findings neutrally without alleging fraud.
Accepting an assignment or continuing one where there is a conflict of interest, a personal relationship with the insured, or a prior role in the same claim, without disclosure.
Candidates underestimate how strictly independence is enforced and assume that disclosure is only needed if asked.
What to do instead
Memorise the conflict-of-interest rule and apply it proactively: identify any connection to the parties or the subject matter, disclose it in writing before accepting, and decline the assignment where independence cannot be preserved. Practise with scenario questions involving repeat assignments and referrals.
Treating policyholder protection as a matter of courtesy rather than a regulatory obligation, and failing to explain the surveyor's findings and the policyholder's grievance redressal options.
Candidates see the surveyor's duty as running only to the insurer who appointed them and overlook the conduct expectations owed to the insured.
What to do instead
Learn the conduct requirements on communication, timeliness, confidentiality and non-coercive behaviour, and the grievance redressal route available to policyholders. In answers, state how the surveyor communicates findings and how the insured is informed of escalation options.