When an Unlicensed or Unauthorised Person Sells Insurance: Liability of the Seller, Insurer, Bank, Employer or Digital Platform

Primary Keyword: Unauthorised Insurance Agent Liability
Secondary Keywords: Unauthorised Insurance Seller, Insurance Agent Liability in India, Insurance Fraud, Apparent Authority, Insurance Intermediary Liability, Digital Insurance Fraud

Introduction

The sale or solicitation of insurance by a person who lacks the required authority raises a difficult legal question: who is ultimately responsible when the consumer suffers a loss?

The answer is not automatically the insurer.

Nor is it automatically the person who collected the money.

The legal position depends upon the relationship between the parties, the authority actually conferred, the representations made to the consumer, the conduct of the insurer or intermediary, the manner in which the premium was collected, and whether the transaction involved an authorised insurance agent, broker, corporate agent, employee, bank, web aggregator, technology platform or an independent fraudster.

Indian law therefore requires a distinction between at least three situations:

a person who is completely unauthorised and falsely represents himself as an insurance representative;
an authorised agent or employee who acts beyond the authority actually granted to him; and
a regulated intermediary or institution whose conduct may create contractual, statutory, regulatory or consumer-law consequences.

This distinction becomes particularly important after the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 18 August 2026 in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 INSC 876, which examined actual and apparent authority, the limits of an employee’s authority and the relationship between agency principles and mandatory provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938.

The central question is therefore not simply whether an insurance seller was “licensed”. The more precise question is:

What authority existed, who created the appearance of that authority, what did the consumer reasonably rely upon, and what does the applicable statute or regulation permit the insurer or intermediary to do?

What Is an Unauthorised Insurance Seller?

“Unauthorised insurance seller” is a descriptive expression rather than a single statutory category.

A person may be unauthorised in different ways.

For example, a person may:

falsely claim to be an insurance agent;
have once been an agent but no longer have authority;
be an authorised agent but exceed the authority granted to him;
work for an insurer but make representations beyond his authority;
operate through an intermediary without the required regulatory status;
collect money without authority to receive premium;
operate a fake insurance website or social-media account;
use the name, logo or documents of an insurer without permission.

The legal consequences differ significantly in each situation.

The first task in any dispute is therefore to identify the person’s legal status and source of authority.

Statutory Framework Under the Insurance Act, 1938

2.1 Section 42: Appointment of Insurance Agents

Section 42 of the Insurance Act, 1938 deals with the appointment of insurance agents.

Section 42(1) permits an insurer to appoint a person as an insurance agent for soliciting and procuring insurance business, subject to the statutory requirements and disqualifications.

The provision also establishes regulatory requirements relating to qualifications, training, examination and conduct.

Importantly, Section 42 is not merely a provision about nomenclature. It establishes a statutory framework governing who may act as an insurance agent and how the insurer may conduct insurance business through such persons.

Section 42(4) further provides penalties for a person acting as an insurance agent in contravention of the Act. It also addresses an insurer or person acting on behalf of an insurer who appoints a person who is not permitted to act as an insurance agent or transacts insurance business through such a person.

Most importantly for liability analysis, Section 42(5) states that the insurer shall be responsible for all acts and omissions of its agents, including violations of the applicable code of conduct, subject to the statutory framework and penalties prescribed by the provision.

This provision is significant, but it must not be misunderstood.

It does not mean that every person who falsely claims to be an insurer’s agent automatically becomes an agent of that insurer.

The threshold question remains whether the person was in fact an agent of the insurer or whether another legal doctrine, such as apparent authority, creates consequences for the principal.

Section 42A and Unauthorised Solicitation

Section 42A of the Insurance Act also contains restrictions concerning insurance business through certain prohibited structures and multilevel marketing arrangements.

The provision is particularly relevant where insurance solicitation takes place through persons who are not authorised for that purpose as part of a multilevel marketing scheme.

Therefore, an arrangement in which individuals are recruited to procure insurance business without the required authorisation cannot simply be characterised as an ordinary sales arrangement.

The regulatory status of the person and the structure through which insurance is being marketed must be examined.

Insurance Agents and Insurance Intermediaries Are Not the Same Category

A common analytical mistake is to use “insurance agent”, “broker”, “corporate agent”, “web aggregator”, “insurance marketing firm” and “digital platform” interchangeably.

They are not interchangeable legal categories.

The IRDAI regulatory framework separately deals with different distribution and intermediary models, including insurance agents, insurance brokers, corporate agents, web aggregators and insurance marketing firms.

For example, IRDAI continues to list the IRDAI (Appointment of Insurance Agents) Regulations, 2016, the IRDAI (Insurance Brokers) Regulations, 2018, and the IRDAI (Insurance Web Aggregators) Regulations, 2017 in its regulatory materials.

Accordingly, before determining liability, the relevant question should be:

In what legal capacity was the person or entity dealing with the consumer?

Calling every person an “insurance agent” can produce an incorrect legal analysis.

Actual Authority, Implied Authority and Apparent Authority

The law of agency under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides the conceptual framework for determining when the acts of a person bind the principal.

Section 182 defines the relationship between principal and agent.

Sections 186 and 187 recognise express and implied authority.

Section 188 deals with the extent of an agent’s authority.

Section 226 provides that contracts entered into through an authorised agent can have the same legal consequences as if entered into by the principal.

The more difficult question arises when an agent acts beyond actual authority.

That is where Section 237 becomes important.

Section 237 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

Section 237 deals with the liability of a principal where the principal has induced a third party to believe that an agent’s unauthorised acts were authorised.

The provision is based on the doctrine commonly described as apparent authority, ostensible authority or holding out.

The statutory principle is that where an agent acts without authority but the principal, through words or conduct, has induced the third party to believe that the act falls within the agent’s authority, the principal may be bound.

However, this doctrine has an important limitation.

The agent cannot normally create his own apparent authority.

A person’s own statement that:

“I am authorised by the insurance company”

does not, by itself, establish apparent authority.

The representation must be traceable to the principal’s conduct, words, organisational arrangement, course of dealing or other circumstances attributable to the principal.

This principle is central to understanding unauthorised insurance transactions.

Harshad J. Shah v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

The Supreme Court’s decision in Harshad J. Shah v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1997) 5 SCC 64 remains an important authority on the limits of an insurance agent’s authority.

The Court distinguished actual authority from apparent authority.

Actual authority concerns the authority conferred by the principal upon the agent.

Apparent authority, by contrast, concerns what the principal has represented to the third party.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the apparent authority of an agent cannot ordinarily be established merely through the agent’s own conduct.

The case is particularly significant because the applicable LIC rules and the agent’s appointment conditions expressly restricted the agent’s ability to collect premiums.

The Court therefore declined to impose liability on LIC merely because the agent had accepted money from the insured.

The broader lesson is:

Being an insurance agent does not confer unlimited authority to perform every act connected with insurance.

An agent’s authority must be identified with reference to the appointment, applicable regulations, instructions, ordinary course of business and the circumstances of the transaction.

State of Orissa v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

In State of Orissa v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 512, the Supreme Court considered an undertaking incorporated into an insurance arrangement by an officer of the insurer.

The Court accepted the finding that the officer had exceeded his authority.

The case demonstrates that a managerial or official designation does not automatically give an employee unlimited authority to create new contractual obligations for the insurer.

This principle remains relevant to insurance disputes involving branch managers, divisional managers and other employees.

However, the 1997 decision should no longer be treated in isolation.

Its reasoning has been examined and developed in the Supreme Court’s 2026 Louis Dreyfus judgment.

The 2026 Louis Dreyfus Judgment: The Current Position

The most important recent development is The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 INSC 876, decided by the Supreme Court on 18 August 2026.

The dispute concerned a marine cargo annual turnover policy issued by New India Assurance.

A Divisional Manager had communicated with the insured concerning the operation of the policy and the effect of turnover on insurance coverage.

The insured relied upon the communication as an assurance that coverage would continue even after the relevant turnover limit had been exceeded.

The insurer argued that the officer did not possess authority to enlarge the risk.

The Supreme Court considered:

the principal-agent relationship;
express and implied authority;
the scope of an employee’s authority;
apparent or ostensible authority;
Section 237 of the Contract Act;
Section 64VB of the Insurance Act;
Harshad J. Shah;
Basanti Devi; and
State of Orissa.

The judgment therefore provides an important modern framework for analysing insurance-agent liability.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide in Louis Dreyfus?

The Supreme Court held that an officer may have authority to administer or explain an insurance policy without having authority to enlarge the insurer’s contractual risk.

This distinction is crucial.

An employee may ordinarily have authority to:

communicate with the insured;
explain an existing policy;
call for premium;
administer an existing insurance arrangement.

But that does not necessarily mean that the employee can:

create an entirely new risk;
enlarge the sum insured;
extend coverage contrary to the policy;
waive a statutory requirement; or
impose an obligation that the insurer itself could not lawfully undertake in that manner.

The judgment therefore rejects a simplistic equation:

Employee = unlimited authority.

The Supreme Court also held that apparent authority must be established through the principal’s conduct and cannot simply be manufactured by the agent’s own assertion.

Section 64VB Creates an Important Limit on Agency

One of the most significant aspects of Louis Dreyfus is the interaction between agency law and Section 64VB of the Insurance Act.

Section 64VB contains statutory restrictions concerning the assumption of insurance risk where the premium has not been received in accordance with the statutory requirements.

The Supreme Court concluded that the statutory provision applied in the circumstances before it.

The additional premium was paid after the relevant incident, and the later endorsement expressly operated from a later date.

The Court therefore rejected the argument that the later payment could retrospectively create coverage for the earlier loss.

This establishes an important proposition:

Agency principles cannot be used to confer upon an insurer a legal capacity that the governing statute itself restricts.

In other words, even apparent authority has limits where the proposed act would contradict a mandatory statutory requirement.

Louis Dreyfus and Section 237

The supplementary opinion in Louis Dreyfus provides particularly useful clarification of Section 237.

The Court explained that actual authority is based on the principal’s manifestation to the agent, whereas apparent authority is based on the principal’s manifestation to the third party.

The agent cannot create apparent authority merely through his own assertion.

The party seeking to bind the principal must establish actual authority or apparent authority attributable to the principal.

This approach is consistent with the earlier reasoning in Harshad J. Shah and Dilawari Exporters v. Alitalia Cargo & Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 754.

The 2026 judgment also explained that the fact that a person is an employee or agent is not, by itself, sufficient to establish authority to undertake the disputed obligation.

Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi: Why Employer Liability Is Different

Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi, (1999) 8 SCC 229, is particularly important when considering employer liability.

The case concerned LIC’s Salary Savings Scheme.

DESU deducted insurance premiums from the employee’s salary and transmitted those premiums to LIC.

Although DESU was not an “insurance agent” appointed under the Insurance Act in the ordinary sense, the Supreme Court held that DESU was an agent of LIC for the specific function of collecting and remitting the premium.

The Court focused on the actual arrangement presented to the insured employee.

The employee was informed that the premium would be deducted from salary and remitted to LIC through DESU.

The legal significance is therefore narrow but important:

An entity need not necessarily be a statutory insurance agent for an agency relationship to arise under the general law of agency.

The existence and scope of agency depend upon the particular arrangement and the function entrusted to the intermediary.

Basanti Devi should not, however, be read as imposing general liability on every employer that facilitates insurance.

The agency arose because of the particular insurance scheme and the function entrusted to DESU.

Liability of the Insurer

The insurer’s liability can arise through several distinct routes.

1. The person was an actual agent

If the person was genuinely appointed as an insurance agent, Section 42 and the applicable IRDAI framework become relevant.

Section 42(5) expressly places responsibility on the insurer for acts and omissions of its agents within the statutory framework.

2. The insurer created apparent authority

Where the insurer’s own conduct reasonably represented that the person possessed particular authority, Section 237 may become relevant.

Examples may include:

repeatedly presenting the person as its representative;
providing official identification or communication channels;
placing the person in a position that reasonably represents authority;
accepting transactions in circumstances supporting the representation;
maintaining a course of dealing that reasonably leads the consumer to believe that the person has authority.

3. The insurer itself committed the relevant act

Where the disputed representation originates directly from an authorised officer acting within actual authority, ordinary contractual principles may apply.

4. The alleged “agent” was actually a fraudster

The analysis changes where a completely independent fraudster merely uses the insurer’s name.

An insurer does not become the principal merely because a fraudster falsely claims to represent it.

The consumer would need to establish an independent legal basis for liability, such as actual agency, apparent authority, negligence, statutory breach or another recognised cause of action.

Liability of the Unauthorised Seller

The person who falsely represents himself as an authorised insurance representative may face civil, regulatory and criminal consequences depending on the facts.

Section 235 of the Contract Act deals with liability of a pretended agent.

Where a person falsely represents himself as an authorised agent and induces another person to deal with him on that basis, he may be personally liable for the resulting loss if the alleged principal does not ratify the transaction.

Criminal liability may also arise where the conduct satisfies the ingredients of an offence.

For example, Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 concerns cheating. Where false representations induce a person to deliver property or act to his detriment, the provision may become relevant.

Similarly, provisions concerning false documents or electronic records may apply where forged policies, receipts, electronic records or other documents are created.

However, criminal liability should always be determined from the specific ingredients of the alleged offence. Merely selling insurance without authority does not automatically establish every possible criminal offence.

When Can a Bank Be Liable?

The mere fact that a bank account was used to receive insurance money does not automatically make the bank liable for the fraud.

The legal analysis depends upon the bank’s role.

Situation 1: Bank merely processed a payment

If the bank merely processed a transaction through an account in accordance with its ordinary banking functions, that fact alone does not establish that the bank authorised the insurance transaction.

Situation 2: Bank acted as a regulated insurance intermediary

The analysis is different if the bank was acting as a corporate agent, broker or another regulated insurance intermediary.

The applicable IRDAI framework and the bank’s actual conduct must then be examined.

Situation 3: Bank personnel themselves represented insurance authority

If bank employees actively represented that an insurance product was authorised, collected premiums in an insurance-distribution capacity, or otherwise acted beyond their banking role, questions of agency, consumer law, regulatory compliance and negligence may arise.

Thus:

Bank involvement is evidence to be investigated, not an automatic basis for liability.

Liability of an Employer

An employer’s liability depends on the employer’s relationship with the insurer and the employee’s role.

An employer may be relevant where:

it formally operates an insurance scheme;
it deducts premiums from employees;
it collects premiums for an insurer;
it is a corporate agent or other regulated intermediary;
its employees are authorised to distribute insurance;
it represented to employees that insurance was being arranged through the employer.

Basanti Devi demonstrates that an employer can, in appropriate circumstances, become an agent of the insurer for a particular function.

But ordinary employment alone does not make every employer an insurance agent.

The court must examine the actual arrangement, representation and function involved.

Liability of Insurance Brokers and Corporate Agents

A broker or corporate agent occupies a regulated position and cannot simply be treated as an ordinary commercial intermediary.

The applicable IRDAI regulations must be examined together with:

the intermediary’s registration;
the identity of the person who dealt with the consumer;
the intermediary’s authority;
the product involved;
the communications made to the consumer;
premium collection arrangements; and
the intermediary’s internal and regulatory compliance.

If an employee or representative of a regulated intermediary exceeds authority, the question may involve both agency law and the regulatory obligations of the intermediary.

Liability of Web Aggregators and Digital Platforms

Digital insurance transactions create a further complication because a website may perform very different functions.

A website may be:

an insurer’s own website;
an insurance broker’s platform;
a registered web aggregator;
a corporate agent’s platform;
an insurance marketing business;
a lead-generation service;
a technology service provider; or
a completely fraudulent website impersonating an insurer.

IRDAI expressly recognises insurance web aggregators as a regulated intermediary category under the IRDAI (Insurance Web Aggregators) Regulations, 2017.

Therefore, calling every online insurance website a “digital platform” is legally insufficient.

The platform’s actual role must first be established.

When Can a Digital Platform Become Relevant to Liability?

A platform’s liability may require examination where it:

directly solicits or sells insurance;
represents itself as an authorised intermediary;
employs or controls the salesperson;
collects premiums in its own name;
issues or facilitates insurance documentation;
makes representations concerning the insurer;
knowingly permits unauthorised persons to use its systems;
acts as a regulated intermediary; or
independently provides a service that gives rise to consumer-law obligations.

By contrast, a technology provider that merely supplies software to an insurer or intermediary should not automatically be treated as the seller of insurance.

The legal relationship must be established from the facts.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 may provide an additional avenue where the facts establish a consumer relationship involving goods or services, deficiency in service or an unfair trade practice.

Section 35 provides the mechanism for filing a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Commission in the circumstances specified by the Act.

However, consumer jurisdiction should not be used as a substitute for identifying the actual legal relationship.

A consumer complaint against an insurer, intermediary, bank or platform requires an appropriate factual and legal basis connecting that entity with the service complained of.

Where the person was a completely independent fraudster with no established connection to the insurer, the consumer’s claim against the insurer cannot be assumed merely because the fraudster used the insurer’s name.

The Importance of Premium Collection

Premium collection is often the factual turning point in an insurance-fraud dispute.

The investigation should establish:

who demanded the premium;
whose account received it;
whether the payment was made through an authorised channel;
whether a receipt was issued;
whether the insurer’s systems recorded the payment;
whether the person was authorised to collect premium;
when the premium reached the insurer;
whether the insurer accepted or rejected it;
whether a policy was actually issued; and
whether the transaction complied with Section 64VB and applicable regulations.

The 2026 Louis Dreyfus judgment demonstrates why payment of money after an event cannot automatically create insurance coverage retrospectively where a statutory provision prevents the assumption of risk before the required premium conditions are satisfied.

Practical Liability Matrix

Party	When liability may arise	When liability is not automatic
Unauthorised seller	False representation, unauthorised solicitation, fraud, pretended agency, receipt of money	Where there is no proof of the alleged conduct
Authorised insurance agent	Acts within authority; statutory/regulatory breaches; acts attributable to insurer under applicable law	Acts wholly outside authority may require separate apparent-authority analysis
Insurer	Acts/omissions of its agents under Section 42(5); actual authority; apparent authority; statutory or contractual obligations	Merely because an outsider falsely used its name
Bank	Acting as insurance intermediary; representations by bank personnel; independent negligence or regulatory breach	Mere processing of a payment or maintenance of an account
Employer	Where it acts as an insurance intermediary or agent for a specific function, as in Basanti Devi	Mere employment relationship without insurance-related authority
Broker/Corporate Agent	Breach of regulatory duties; acts within agency; representations by authorised personnel	Mere introduction of a customer without evidence of the relevant legal role
Web Aggregator	Conduct within regulated aggregation/distribution function; regulatory breach; representations attributable to it	Merely because its website or technology was used by an outsider
Technology Platform	Where it itself performs regulated/distribution functions or independently undertakes relevant obligations	Pure technology provision without evidence of insurance-distribution authority

A Five-Stage Test for Determining Liability

Courts and investigators can approach an unauthorised insurance transaction through five principal questions.

Stage 1: Identify the actor

Was the person:

an insurance agent;
broker;
corporate agent;
employee;
bank representative;
web aggregator;
technology provider; or
independent fraudster?

Stage 2: Identify actual authority

What authority was expressly or impliedly granted?

Relevant evidence includes:

appointment letters;
agency agreements;
intermediary registration;
internal authorisations;
regulatory records;
official identification;
correspondence.

Stage 3: Examine apparent authority

Did the principal itself create a representation that the person possessed the relevant authority?

The focus should be on the principal’s conduct, not merely the agent’s own assertion.

Stage 4: Examine statutory restrictions

Even if apparent authority is alleged, ask whether the proposed act was legally capable of being undertaken.

Section 64VB in Louis Dreyfus demonstrates that agency cannot override a mandatory statutory restriction.

Stage 5: Trace the money and documentation

Finally, establish:

Who received the premium → who issued the receipt → who issued the policy → whose systems recorded the transaction → who communicated with the customer → who had authority to perform each act.

This evidence frequently determines the outcome.

Evidence a Consumer Should Preserve

A person affected by an unauthorised insurance transaction should preserve:

policy documents;
proposal forms;
premium receipts;
bank statements;
UPI/payment records;
emails;
WhatsApp or SMS communications;
call records where lawfully available;
screenshots of websites;
advertisements;
social-media profiles;
agent identification cards;
visiting cards;
intermediary registration details;
insurer correspondence;
policy numbers;
transaction IDs;
recordings or documents showing representations made by the seller; and
proof of communications with the insurer.

The consumer should also independently verify whether the alleged agent or intermediary was authorised.

What Should an Insurer or Intermediary Investigate?

An insurer or regulated intermediary investigating a complaint should ordinarily examine:

whether the alleged seller was appointed;
whether the appointment was valid on the relevant date;
what authority was granted;
whether the authority had expired or been withdrawn;
whether the person had access to official systems;
whether official documents were issued;
whether premium reached the insurer;
whether the insurer’s employees communicated with the customer;
whether the organisation created any representation of authority;
whether the transaction complied with applicable IRDAI regulations.

This is preferable to deciding liability merely from the fact that a person used the insurer’s name.

Key Legal Principles

The combined effect of the statutory framework and the leading authorities can be summarised as follows:

Principle 1

A person cannot become an authorised insurance agent merely by describing himself as one.

Principle 2

Section 42 of the Insurance Act regulates the appointment and conduct of insurance agents.

Principle 3

Section 42(5) expressly places responsibility upon an insurer for acts and omissions of its agents, but the provision does not automatically convert an independent fraudster into the insurer’s agent.

Principle 4

An agent’s authority may be express or implied.

Principle 5

Apparent authority depends upon a representation attributable to the principal.

Principle 6

An agent cannot ordinarily create his own apparent authority by his own assertion.

Principle 7

A managerial designation does not automatically confer unlimited authority.

Principle 8

Basanti Devi demonstrates that an employer may become an agent of an insurer for a particular function where the arrangement created that authority.

Principle 9

State of Orissa demonstrates that an insurance company’s officer cannot necessarily bind the insurer by undertaking obligations outside the authority conferred.

Principle 10

The 2026 Louis Dreyfus judgment confirms that an employee may have authority to administer or explain an insurance policy without authority to enlarge the insurer’s contractual risk.

Principle 11

Agency principles cannot be used to defeat a mandatory statutory requirement.

Principle 12

Liability of banks and digital platforms depends upon their actual role, conduct, authority and applicable regulatory obligations.

Conclusion

The liability arising from an unauthorised insurance transaction cannot be determined by asking only whether the seller possessed a licence.

The legally relevant questions are more precise:

Who was the seller? What was his legal status? Who authorised him? What was the scope of that authority? Did the insurer or intermediary hold him out as authorised? What did the consumer reasonably rely upon? Where did the premium go? What documents were issued? And did the transaction comply with mandatory insurance law and IRDAI regulations?

The Supreme Court’s decision in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 INSC 876 makes the distinction particularly important. An employee may possess authority to communicate about an existing policy without possessing authority to enlarge the insurer’s risk. Apparent authority must arise from the principal’s representation, and agency cannot be used to overcome a statutory restriction such as the requirements governing assumption of insurance risk under Section 64VB of the Insurance Act.

At the same time, Basanti Devi demonstrates that the absence of formal status as an “insurance agent” does not necessarily end the agency inquiry. An employer or other institution may become an agent for a particular function where the principal’s arrangement and conduct create such authority.

Therefore, there is no single rule that makes the seller, insurer, bank, employer or digital platform automatically liable.

The correct approach is a party-by-party analysis of authority, representation, reliance, statutory compliance, contractual relationship and evidence.

That approach is both more consistent with Indian agency law and more useful for consumers, insurers, intermediaries and courts dealing with modern insurance fraud.

Authorities and Primary Legal Sources

Insurance Act, 1938, Sections 42, 42A, 42D and 64VB.
Indian Contract Act, 1872, Sections 182, 186, 187, 188, 226, 227, 235, 237 and 238.
Harshad J. Shah v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1997) 5 SCC 64.
State of Orissa v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 512.
Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi, (1999) 8 SCC 229.
Dilawari Exporters v. Alitalia Cargo & Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 754.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 INSC 876, decided 18 August 2026.
Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
IRDAI (Appointment of Insurance Agents) Regulations, 2016.
IRDAI (Insurance Brokers) Regulations, 2018.
IRDAI (Insurance Web Aggregators) Regulations, 2017.
IRDAI (Registration of Corporate Agents) Regulations, 2015.
IRDAI (Registration of Insurance Marketing Firm) Regulations, 2015.
IRDAI (Protection of Policyholder’s Interests, Operations and Allied Matters of Insurers) Regulations, 2024.

When an Unlicensed or Unauthorised Person Sells Insurance: Liability of the Seller, Insurer, Bank, Employer or Digital Platform