Insurance FDI reform: India’s insurance sector finally crossed a political red line last week. The Union Cabinet cleared the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2025, raising the foreign direct investment cap from 74% to 100%. The intent is unmistakable: invite global capital, technology and competition into a sector that has underperformed despite decades of reform. This is the most decisive liberalisation since the sector was opened to private players in 2000 under the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government. Yet history cautions against exaggerated expectations.
The numbers are sobering. India’s life insurance penetration is about 2.8% of GDP, while non-life insurance is close to 1%, far below global averages and even several Asian peers, according to Swiss Re and World Bank data. Large household savings remain parked in gold, property and bank deposits, not risk-pooling instruments.
READ | US naval supremacy depends on factories, not aircraft carriers
When shocks hit—health crises, accidents, climate events—the burden shifts to families or the exchequer. Schemes such as Ayushman Bharat and disaster relief funds compensate for what insurance markets fail to cover, stretching public finances. The government’s logic is simple: deeper insurance markets reduce fiscal stress.
What 100% insurance FDI promises
The official bet is on capital and capability. Allowing 100% FDI lets global insurers deploy larger balance sheets, advanced actuarial models, digital underwriting tools and reinsurance links. These are areas where Indian insurers still lag, as noted in IRDAI multiple annual reports.
Credit rating agencies such as Moody’s have argued that higher foreign ownership could strengthen capital adequacy, improve governance standards and accelerate product innovation. Existing joint ventures may also simplify ownership structures, cutting decision-making delays that plague shared control models.
Why impact will be limited
But the insurance business is not a greenfield factory. Distribution is destiny. India’s life and general insurance markets still depend heavily on agents, bancassurance tie-ups, cooperative banks and micro-insurance networks. These ecosystems were built over decades and are owned largely by Indian promoters and public sector institutions.
Capital alone cannot buy trust. Even when the FDI cap was raised from 49% to 74% in 2021, there was no surge in fresh capital or penetration. Foreign partners largely stayed in joint ventures because Indian firms controlled the pipes through which policies actually reach households.
Why foreign insurers still need local partners
Ownership is not the same as control. The proposed requirement that at least one among the chairperson, managing director or CEO be an Indian citizen may appear modest, but for multinational insurers it complicates global management structures. Full ownership without full operational autonomy is rarely attractive.
More importantly, insurers need local judgement. India’s market combines urban affluence, rural income volatility, informal labour and deep risk aversion. Product design, pricing and claims settlement depend on local behaviour, not global templates. That is why most foreign insurers prefer partnership over solitude.
Where the reform may actually work
The real opportunity lies outside traditional life insurance. Health, motor and other non-life segments are growing faster and rely less on face-to-face agents. Digital distribution, bundled health covers and standardised motor products reduce dependence on legacy networks.
Here, foreign insurers have experience and scale. Full FDI could encourage niche global players to enter health insurance, specialty risk and climate-linked covers. These segments also align with India’s rising healthcare costs and urbanisation trends, documented by the World Bank and RBI.
Why demand will still take time
India’s insurance gap is not only about supply. Real incomes, financial literacy and cultural attitudes to risk shape demand. Many households still see insurance as a tax, not protection. Penetration rises slowly even when products exist, a pattern acknowledged in IRDAI consumer studies.
Foreign insurers entering India must therefore invest in education, claims credibility and long-term brand building. Those looking for quick returns will be disappointed. This is a patient market, not a speculative one.
The FDI liberalisation is not futile—but it is incomplete. Without faster product approvals, simpler licensing, predictable regulation and incentives for deeper distribution, higher foreign ownership will not transform the sector. Capital opens doors; institutions decide outcomes.
If regulators modernise processes and insurers—Indian and foreign—rebuild distribution and trust together, insurance penetration will rise. If not, the reform will remain a symbolic victory rather than a structural one.