The Fixed Deposit That Was a ULIP
Mrs. R, 68, a retired schoolteacher, comes to a bank branch to reinvest ₹12 lakh from a maturing fixed deposit. The relationship manager, who holds a corporate agency licence for the bank's insurance partner, recommends a 'special senior citizen plan' that he describes as 'as safe as an FD, with a guaranteed 9% return and life cover', and says she can withdraw after one year. She is issued a unit-linked insurance policy with a single premium of ₹10 lakh, a five-year lock-in, a fund management charge of 1.35% a year, and a first-year commission of 12% (₹1.2 lakh) payable to the bank's agency. The policy is emailed to her; the key features are not explained. She signs a suitability form that the RM has already filled in, ticking 'high risk appetite', although she had told him she wanted 'no risk'. Twenty-four days later her son reads the policy and finds the surrender value is about ₹7.4 lakh. She asks to cancel. The branch says the free-look period is over.
1. Was the sale compliant? Identify the specific failures.
Read the worked answer
The sale was not compliant.
- Product misrepresentation. A ULIP is a market-linked product. Describing it as 'as safe as an FD' with a 'guaranteed 9% return' misstates both the risk and the return. Only the insurer's policy document can define guarantees, and a ULIP's fund value is not guaranteed.
- Liquidity misstatement. A five-year lock-in cannot be described as withdrawable after one year. The surrender value at 24 days - about ₹7.4 lakh on a ₹10 lakh premium - illustrates the cost of early exit.
- Unsuitable advice. A 68-year-old customer who said she wanted 'no risk' was placed in a high-risk, long-lock-in product. The suitability form was filled by the RM and contradicts her stated objective; a signed form completed by the seller is weak evidence of suitability.
- Conflict of interest. The 12% first-year commission created a clear incentive to recommend the product over a fixed deposit.
- Disclosure failure. The key features, charges, lock-in and free-look right were not explained; emailing the policy is not the same as explaining it.
On the free-look point, the branch's statement is also doubtful: under the current life-insurance product framework the free-look period is 30 days from receipt of the policy, and she is at day 24. The bank should verify the receipt date before rejecting the request.
2. What remedies are available to Mrs. R, and how should the bank respond?
Read the worked answer
Remedies
- Free-look cancellation. If the policy was received within the last 30 days, she can cancel and receive the premium refunded less the proportionate risk charge and expenses permitted by the policy. The bank should not reject this on an unverified receipt date.
- Mis-selling complaint. Even outside free-look, misrepresentation and unsuitable sale are separate grounds. She can complain to the insurer's grievance redressal officer, then to IRDAI's Bima Bharosa portal, and then to the insurance ombudsman. The bank, as corporate agent, is also accountable to the insurer and the regulator for the sale.
- Compensation and correction. Depending on the finding, the remedy may be cancellation, refund, or making good the difference. The commission may be clawed back from the agency.
How the bank should respond The branch should not hide behind the signed suitability form, because its own RM filled it in. It should suspend the complaint clock, retrieve the call records and policy receipt date, record Mrs. R's statement, and escalate to the insurer and the bank's compliance team. A senior citizen who was told a ULIP was an FD should receive a written explanation and a fair review, not a one-line rejection. The bank should also check whether the RM used a pre-filled form for other customers.
3. As the branch manager, what controls would you put in place?
Read the worked answer
Sales-process controls
- Make the customer, not the RM, complete the suitability and needs analysis, and require a signed declaration of risk appetite. A pre-filled form should be treated as a control failure.
- Require a key-fact explanation in the customer's language, covering lock-in, charges, surrender value, free-look and the difference from a deposit. Record an audio or video consent where the bank's policy permits.
- Introduce a mandatory call-back or cooling-off confirmation for customers above 60 and for single-premium sales above a threshold.
- Disclose commission and remuneration in the form required by the insurer and the regulator; do not compare a ULIP to an FD.
Monitoring controls 5. Review complaint and surrender data by RM and by product; a cluster of early surrenders is a mis-selling signal. 6. Run mystery shopping and annual re-certification for corporate-agency staff. 7. Link a portion of variable pay to complaint-free, persistency-adjusted sales rather than first-year commission alone. 8. Escalate any case where the customer's stated risk appetite contradicts the product sold.
The branch manager's own incentive should not reward premium alone. If the RM's 12% commission is earned at the point of sale and the customer bears the loss at surrender, the control system must create a counterweight.