Introduction

Insurance is intended to provide financial protection when an uncertain event covered by a policy occurs. However, for many policyholders, the difficulty does not end with the occurrence of the insured event. A new problem may arise during the claim-settlement process: repeated demands for documents, requests for information already submitted, requirements unrelated to the claim, or demands for documents that the claimant cannot reasonably obtain.

This situation may be described as an “endless document loop”—a situation in which the claimant continues to provide documents, but the claim is not finally assessed because another requirement is raised at each stage.

Documentation is undoubtedly an important part of insurance claim assessment. Insurers are entitled to verify the claim, determine whether the loss falls within the policy and assess the amount payable. However, the regulatory framework also recognises the importance of timely and fair claim processing. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (“IRDAI”) has issued a framework for protection of policyholders and regulation of insurers’ operations, including the IRDAI (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests, operations and allied matters of insurers) Regulations, 2024.

The central issue, therefore, is not whether an insurer may ask for documents. It is whether the documentation process remains reasonable, connected to the claim and consistent with the applicable policy and regulatory requirements.

---

I. Understanding the “Endless Document Loop”

An endless document loop can arise in several ways.

1. Repeated requests

A claimant may submit a particular document and later receive another request for the same document. This may happen because of internal communication gaps between the insurer, third-party administrator (“TPA”), surveyor or claims department.

For the claimant, however, the practical consequence is the same: the claim remains pending despite apparent compliance.

2. Piecemeal requests

A more complicated situation arises when documents are demanded one after another:

Claim form → medical records → bank statement → additional certificate → clarification → another certificate → further clarification.

The problem is not necessarily the individual request. The concern is the cumulative effect of repeatedly expanding the documentation requirement.

IRDAI’s regulatory framework has specifically addressed the need to avoid unnecessary piecemeal documentation in the health-insurance context. IRDAI’s official guidance states that, ordinarily, documents not listed in the policy terms should not be treated as necessary, and that documents required for processing should be called for at one time rather than in a piecemeal manner, subject to circumstances such as suspected fraud.

3. Irrelevant documentation

A document may be requested even though it has little connection with the insured event, coverage question or amount claimed.

For example, if an insurer requires a document that has no apparent relationship with the policy condition being examined, the claimant may reasonably ask the insurer to identify:

• why the document is required;
• which policy condition makes it relevant;
• whether an alternative document can establish the same fact; and
• whether the document is actually necessary for deciding the claim.

This creates a useful distinction between verification and procedural obstruction.

4. Impossible or unobtainable documents

Sometimes the problem is not unwillingness but impossibility.

A claimant may be asked to produce:

• a record that does not exist;
• a document held exclusively by a third party;
• an old government record that is no longer available;
• a certificate that the issuing authority refuses to provide;
• or a document that the claimant has no legal ability to obtain.

In such circumstances, simply stating that the document cannot be produced may not be sufficient. The claimant should create evidence demonstrating the attempt to obtain it and the reason for its unavailability.

---

II. The Regulatory Framework: Timely and Fair Claim Processing

The regulatory framework governing policyholder protection is important because documentation cannot be viewed separately from the insurer’s obligation to process claims.

The IRDAI (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests, Operations and Allied Matters of Insurers) Regulations, 2024 form part of the current regulatory framework for protecting policyholders and governing insurer operations. IRDAI describes these regulations as intended to protect policyholders throughout their engagement with insurers and distribution channels.

IRDAI’s health-insurance guidance illustrates the principle particularly clearly. It states that an insurer should settle or reject a claim within thirty days of receiving the last necessary document. Where circumstances warrant an investigation, the investigation is ordinarily to be completed within thirty days, with settlement within forty-five days from receipt of the last necessary document. The guidance also addresses interest for delay.

The significance of the phrase “last necessary document” is important.

If an insurer can continually create a new category of “necessary” documents without adequate justification, the date from which the claim is considered complete could effectively keep moving.

Therefore, the claimant should preserve evidence establishing when the documents necessary for determination of the claim were actually supplied.

---

III. “Necessary” Does Not Mean “Anything the Insurer Requests”

There is an important difference between:

“The insurer has requested a document.”

and

“The document is necessary for deciding the claim.”

The existence of a request does not automatically establish the legal necessity of the document.

The policy terms remain central. Claim requirements must be examined in light of:

1. the insurance contract;
2. applicable IRDAI regulations;
3. the nature of the claim;
4. the factual circumstances requiring verification; and
5. any legitimate investigation being conducted.

This does not mean that an insurer is prohibited from seeking additional documents. An insurer may require further information where the circumstances genuinely justify investigation or clarification.

The issue arises where the requirement becomes disconnected from the actual assessment of the claim.

---

IV. The Importance of a Documentary Trail

The claimant’s strongest protection against an endless documentation cycle is often documentation about the documentation.

A claimant should maintain a chronological record of every interaction with the insurer.

A practical compliance table

Requirement	Date Requested	Date Submitted	Proof of Submission	Status
Claim form	1 Sept.	3 Sept.	Email acknowledgement	Completed
Bills	1 Sept.	3 Sept.	Submission receipt	Completed
Medical records	5 Sept.	7 Sept.	Email	Completed
Additional certificate	10 Sept.	—	Hospital confirms unavailable	Unobtainable
Clarification	15 Sept.	16 Sept.	Reply email	Completed

Such a record transforms an informal dispute into an objectively verifiable timeline.

Instead of merely saying:

“I have submitted everything.”

the claimant can demonstrate:

“The insurer requested X on 1 September; X was submitted on 3 September; the insurer acknowledged receipt; the same document was requested again on 15 September.”

That distinction can become significant in a grievance or legal proceeding.

---

V. How to Prove Compliance

A claimant dealing with repeated requests should adopt a “Compliance Dossier” approach.

Step 1: Preserve the original policy

Keep a complete copy of:

• policy document;
• schedule;
• endorsements;
• terms and conditions;
• exclusions;
• addenda;
• renewal documents.

The claimant should not rely solely on an online portal because policy terms may subsequently change or become inaccessible.

Step 2: Preserve the original claim submission

Maintain:

• claim form;
• date of claim;
• acknowledgement;
• claim number;
• email or portal submission confirmation;
• courier/postal receipt where applicable.

Step 3: Create a document index

Every document submitted should receive an identifying number.

For example:

D-01: Claim form
D-02: Policy copy
D-03: Hospital bill
D-04: Discharge summary
D-05: Medical records
D-06: Bank details

This makes future correspondence substantially easier.

Step 4: Respond in writing

Where a new document is requested, the claimant should avoid relying only on telephone conversations.

A written response can state:

“The requested document was already submitted on [date] and is enclosed again for convenience.”

Or:

“The requested document is not available because the issuing authority has confirmed that it does not maintain such a record. A copy of the communication confirming its unavailability is attached.”

This creates contemporaneous evidence.

Step 5: Ask for the legal/policy basis

Where a document appears unusual or unrelated, the claimant may ask:

“Kindly specify the relevant policy condition or regulatory requirement under which this document is being treated as necessary for processing the claim.”

This is particularly useful because it requires the insurer to connect the request with the claim.

---

VI. What if the Document Cannot Be Obtained?

An impossible requirement should not simply be ignored.

The claimant should establish reasonable efforts to obtain the document.

For example:

Document requested: Government certificate
Authority approached: District office
Date of application: 10 September
Response: Authority states that record is unavailable
Evidence: Written response/email/acknowledgement

The claimant can then request that the insurer consider alternative evidence.

Possible alternatives may include:

• affidavit;
• declaration;
• certified copy;
• secondary evidence where legally permissible;
• correspondence from the relevant authority;
• contemporaneous records;
• bank statements;
• photographs;
• electronic records;
• independent reports.

The appropriate alternative depends on the nature of the claim and the legal significance of the missing document.

---

VII. Repeated Documentation and Claim Delays

The relationship between documentation and delay becomes particularly important because claim settlement is not intended to remain open indefinitely.

IRDAI’s official health-insurance guidance provides that claims should ordinarily be settled or rejected within thirty days after receipt of the last necessary document. Where investigation is warranted, the investigation should ordinarily be completed within thirty days and the claim settled within forty-five days from receipt of the last necessary document.

This makes the concept of the “last necessary document” particularly important.

A claimant should therefore preserve the exact date on which each requested document was supplied.

If the insurer later argues that the claim remained incomplete, the claimant’s documentary record can help establish what was actually outstanding and when it was supplied.

---

VIII. The Significance of the Supreme Court’s Approach to Repudiation

The Supreme Court’s decision in JSK Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 7630 of 2022, decided on October 18, 2022, is relevant to the broader principle of transparency in insurance disputes.

The Court dealt with an insurance claim that had been repudiated. Referring to its earlier decision in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., the Court reiterated that an insurer cannot subsequently rely upon grounds that were not the basis of its repudiation.

In other words, the insurer cannot simply introduce a new substantive justification later in the proceedings to support the repudiation.

Although JSK Industries does not specifically decide the issue of an “endless document loop,” its reasoning illustrates an important broader principle: the claimant should be able to understand the actual basis upon which the insurer has taken its decision.

This reinforces the practical importance of preserving every request, response and eventual decision.

---

IX. Grievance Redressal and the Insurance Ombudsman

Where repeated document requests result in prolonged delay or an unresolved claim dispute, the policyholder has formal grievance mechanisms.

The Insurance Ombudsman framework covers complaints including:

• delay in settlement of claims;
• partial or total repudiation;
• disputes relating to policy terms;
• policy-servicing grievances; and
• non-observance of applicable IRDAI regulations or instructions in relevant circumstances.

The Council for Insurance Ombudsmen states that a complainant should first approach the insurer or insurance broker. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, or no response is received within the prescribed period, the complainant may approach the Ombudsman subject to the applicable conditions.

The Ombudsman route is available for specified categories of policies and disputes, including personal lines, group insurance and policies issued to sole proprietorships and micro enterprises, subject to the applicable rules. The current stated monetary limit for the compensation awarded by the Ombudsman is ₹50 lakh.

The complaint should be supported by documentary evidence. The Council specifically identifies documents such as the policy, repudiation or denial letter, representation to the insurer and relevant correspondence as useful supporting material.

Thus, the same documentary trail that helps establish compliance with the insurer can also become the foundation of a formal grievance.

---

X. A Practical Model for Claimants

A claimant facing repeated requests can follow a simple “Request–Response–Proof” system.

REQUEST

Preserve the insurer’s exact request.

RESPONSE

Respond to every requirement in writing.

PROOF

Attach evidence showing:

• when the document was submitted;
• how it was submitted;
• whether the insurer acknowledged it;
• whether it was requested previously;
• whether it is unavailable; and
• what alternative evidence has been provided.

This creates a chronological chain:

Claim → Document Request → Submission → Acknowledgement → Additional Request → Response → Final Decision

The stronger this chain, the easier it becomes to identify where the dispute actually arose.

---

XI. What Insurers Should Ideally Do

The issue should not be viewed solely from the claimant’s perspective.

Insurers have legitimate responsibilities to prevent fraudulent claims and verify policy coverage. An insurer may need additional information where:

• facts are inconsistent;
• fraud is suspected;
• coverage is unclear;
• the quantum of loss requires verification;
• the policy contains specific documentation requirements; or
• investigation is genuinely necessary.

The solution is therefore not to eliminate documentation.

Rather, claim processing should aim for necessary, proportionate and transparent documentation.

A claimant should know:

1. what document is required;
2. why it is required;
3. whether it has already been received;
4. whether an alternative can be accepted;
5. what remains outstanding; and
6. when the claim can be expected to be decided once the necessary material is complete.

---

XII. Conclusion

The problem of an endless document loop lies at the intersection of contractual rights, regulatory obligations and practical access to justice.

Insurance companies have a legitimate need to verify claims. Policyholders, however, should not be left indefinitely navigating an unclear process in which every submission produces another unexplained requirement.

The most effective response is not simply to submit documents repeatedly. It is to create evidence of compliance.

A claimant should preserve the policy, identify every requirement, record every submission, obtain acknowledgements, challenge unclear requirements in writing and document every genuine attempt to obtain an unavailable document.

The resulting record can demonstrate a simple but important proposition:

The claimant did not refuse to cooperate; the claimant complied, explained, documented and followed up.

In an insurance dispute, that distinction can be critical.

Ultimately, documentation should facilitate claim assessment—not become an indefinite substitute for it.