Will insurance commission cuts make policies cheaper? India’s insurance regulator faces a difficult choice. Lowering distribution costs could improve affordability and discourage the sale of unsuitable policies, but excessive cuts could weaken the network of agents, banks and brokers on which insurers depend to reach customers.
The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) reopened this debate in September 2026 with proposals to tighten expenses of management (EoM) limits and introduce product-specific caps on commissions. The proposals seek greater control over selling costs and incentives that can encourage mis-selling. Their effects, however, will extend beyond the commissions paid to intermediaries. They could influence insurers’ profitability, distributors’ earnings and the pace at which insurance reaches new customers.
READ | IRDAI’s commission caps could reshape insurance distribution
The regulator must therefore distinguish between commissions that reward useful selling efforts and payments that encourage distributors to recommend policies for their own benefit. A uniform approach to cutting costs could weaken distribution without necessarily making insurance more affordable.
Commissions and the cost of selling insurance
Insurance is difficult to sell because customers pay premiums today for protection against events that may occur years later, or never occur at all. Policy terms can be complicated, and the value of a policy often depends on exclusions, conditions and the circumstances in which a claim is made. Agents help customers understand these provisions, while banks sell policies through established customer relationships. Brokers and digital platforms serve other segments.
These channels differ in their operating costs and ability to acquire customers. Commissions compensate distributors for bringing in business and, in some cases, maintaining relationships with policyholders. They can also create incentives to recommend a policy that pays more rather than one that better suits the customer.
The problem is especially acute when a distributor has a financial interest in selling a particular product. Customers may have limited ability to compare policies, while the consequences of buying unsuitable cover may emerge only when they seek a claim or discover that premiums are difficult to sustain.
IRDAI’s proposed product- and channel-specific commission ceilings seek to address this problem. The regulator has also proposed tighter EoM limits, which govern insurers’ overall management expenses, including commissions. These are separate but related interventions: commission caps restrict payments for particular products and channels, while EoM limits constrain the broader expenses insurers can incur.
The distinction matters because a reduction in commissions will not necessarily produce an equivalent reduction in premiums. Insurers may retain the savings as higher margins, spend them on technology or use them to expand distribution. Customers will benefit only if the changes in costs and incentives improve the price, suitability or value of the policies available to them.
READ | Crop insurance gaps expose India’s small farmers
The implications for insurers and investors
The proposals could alter the economics of insurers that rely heavily on banks, brokers or other intermediaries. Lower commissions may improve margins if premium volumes hold up. If distributors respond by giving less attention to products that have become less remunerative, however, insurers could lose business. The net effect will vary by product, distribution channel and company.
Investors will need to assess both sides of this calculation. A company’s future earnings depend on its costs, but also on its ability to generate new premiums and retain policyholders. An apparent improvement in margins may prove less valuable if it comes at the expense of sales growth.
The timing is significant because the insurance industry is also undergoing changes in ownership and capital commitments. Bajaj Finserv and its promoter-group entities agreed to acquire Allianz’s 26% stakes in Bajaj’s life and general insurance businesses for ₹24,180 crore, ending a 24-year partnership. Prudential agreed to acquire a controlling 75% stake in Bharti Life Insurance for an initial ₹3,500 crore, with additional consideration of up to ₹700 crore subject to conditions. Patanjali Ayurved and the DS Group have also been associated with a proposed acquisition of Magma General Insurance.
These transactions reflect strategic decisions about ownership, growth and the future of insurance in India. The proposed commission rules should be considered alongside these changes, although the transactions themselves do not establish that the regulatory proposals have altered dealmaking. Their effect on future valuations will depend on how investors assess the likely impact on distribution revenues and insurers’ profitability.
The broader policy setting is also changing. India has allowed 100% foreign direct investment in insurance, increasing the scope for foreign capital and new ownership arrangements. For investors considering fresh commitments, the regulatory framework governing distribution costs is one of several factors that will shape the expected returns.
READ | Jan Suraksha insurance cover needs a realistic reset
Insurance commissions: Lower costs must not restrict access
The strongest argument for reform is that the existing system can reward sales volume even when a product is unsuitable for the buyer. The case against abrupt reductions is equally practical. In smaller towns and among first-time buyers, agents may need to spend considerable time explaining policies, collecting documents and helping customers complete applications. If compensation no longer covers that effort, some distributors may shift to other products or concentrate on customers who are cheaper to serve.
Such a response could leave insurance harder to obtain for households that already have limited access to professional advice. Digital distribution may reduce some costs, but it cannot be assumed to replace personal assistance in every market or for every product.
IRDAI chairman Ajay Seth has presented the proposals as an effort to improve affordability, product quality, accessibility and transparency, rather than simply to cut commissions. The test will be whether the final rules deliver those outcomes. That requires scrutiny of how the proposed ceilings relate to the work involved in selling different policies, the needs of different customer groups and the costs of maintaining a distribution network.
A phased transition would give insurers and intermediaries time to renegotiate contracts and adapt their business models. The regulator should also monitor whether lower commissions lead to better prices and more suitable products, rather than assuming that savings will automatically reach policyholders.
India needs a wider insurance market, with fewer customers buying unsuitable policies and more households able to obtain cover they can afford to maintain. Commission reform can contribute to that objective, but only if the rules preserve the economic incentive to sell useful insurance. The measure of success should be the quality and reach of insurance protection, not the reduction in distribution costs alone.