Two cases from the practice, shared with permission and stripped of anything identifying. Both start the same way: a policy already in place, and an assumption that a policy is the same thing as cover.
The client already held health insurance and assumed that having a policy meant they were adequately protected. The sum insured was low against what hospitalisation actually costs now.
The existing policy in detail: sum insured, room-rent limits, waiting periods, exclusions and restoration benefits. Those clauses decide what a policy pays far more than the premium does.
Raising the overall level of cover and adding suitable protection around it, rather than simply selling another policy alongside the first. Two overlapping policies are not the same as adequate cover.
The client came away understanding what their existing protection actually covers and where the gaps sit. That was the point of the exercise; a purchase was not.
A young earning individual held policies built mainly around savings. The life cover inside them was not enough to carry the family’s future financial obligations if anything happened to the earner.
The approximate life cover actually required, worked out from income, outstanding liabilities and the responsibilities the family carries, rather than from whatever the existing policies happened to provide.
Pure term insurance considered on its own, separately from investment and savings products. Term cover is priced on protection, so judging it by its returns is the wrong test.
The client understood where insurance ends and investment begins, and could weigh the cover they needed on its own terms instead of as a by-product of a savings plan.
Real cases, not a pattern we are claiming. Every portfolio and every family is different, and nothing here projects what a review would find for you.
