Insurance industry frequently faces criticism for being unresponsive or even obstructive; admiration for its functioning is rare, even when there are significant achievements.
Consider how expectations around claims are framed: If a fire department delays a report, the onus falls on insurers to “adjust.” If meteorological departments withhold certificates, insurers are expected to find alternatives. When hospitals overcharge, some criticism also lands at the insurer’s door, as if other stakeholders are beyond scrutiny. Nearly every procedural compromise or waiver is demanded from this industry alone.
Are all claim requirements truly unnecessary? In practice, many are designed to verify legitimacy, prevent abuse, and safeguard policyholders’ funds. Yet, even when 99 things go right, a single shortfall becomes the focal point for criticism—criticism that is sometimes unjustified, disproportionate, and sometimes originating from within the industry itself.
During calamities like floods or earthquakes, insurers often walk the extra mile—waiving conditions, deploying additional resources, and expediting settlements—yet recognition is rarely liberal; it is fleeting and limited at best.
This is not to suggest that that criticism is unwelcome or the industry is beyond reproach . There are genuine issues regarding the complexity of policy wording, transparency in transactions, clarity in communication, and—most importantly—predictability in claim settlements. These areas must be constantly reviewed and corrected. The industry must learn, evolve, and improve every day. However, let criticism be specific ,constructive and solution-oriented, rather than allowing it to grossly overshadow achievements.
Insurance industry needs to perform better—there is no doubt about that—and it must also work towards creating a better public perception. This remains an ongoing mission.