SEBI restricts ULIP schemes of Insurance Companies

This is a good decision taken because due to ULIP banks were facing so many pressures and problems and Insurance companies were making good money from it, as the risk is of customers

Take AVIVA....its all products are based on ULIP plans.they are confusing regarding their fees structure that a normal person can't understand a little bit.
Insurance should not be a option for high return savings.people take it as a Insurance not as a savings.you will get better returns in PLI of post office. :)

The Life Insurance companies are selling their schemes as investment and not as insurance. This confuses the policy holders. One should take insurance policy only for protection of his dependents in unfortunate even of his death. so, the low premium and high death benefit policy only should be preferred.

If you want insurance.then go for Term policies.they are low in premium and high in insurance. :)

Gulshan Insurance company never sell ULIp plans to customer but the agents or advisors sell it to the customer to get maximum commission,So we should not blame any company

Bhanu You are 100% right most of the people are not aware about TERM INSURANCE.
under which you can get coverage of RS20 lakh death benefit by paying the premium just Rs5000 per year. But the condition is that if the person do not die they will not get refund any premium they have paid but still it is more valuable to Insured person

Dear members Insurance is very good key word in Google search engine and I think this forum can get us some traffic.
If any member has any doubt post your question here I will try my best to give you a satisfy answer

The decision of the SEBI has nothing to do putting restriction on investment in ULIP schemes by the Insurance companies and it is just a procedural lapse on the part of these insurance companies and once they get these schemes registered with SEBI these would be back again!!

DSoubhagya Das- An agent acts on behalf of principal. A company is bound by the act of agent, who promotes company business. Personally, I feel that insurance companies should be allowed to issue only Term Insurance policies that pay death benefit but no survival benefit. this is like motor insurance policy, where you get payment only for actual loss.
But the main issue is that this is tug of war between SEBI and IRDA. This is really very unfortunate. The Ministry of Finance should issue necessary directive to IRDA and SEBI to resolve the issue.

Gullshan Ministry of finance has instructed to SEBI and IRDA to resolve the matter with out Ministry of finances interfere .
This will resolve soon but I dont understand why SEBI open his mouth after 9 year and why IRDA saying to Insurance company no need to stop selling keep on selling ULIP.

They both authority want to show there importance

The problem is that the self regulating agencies are acting in whimsical manner. Insurance policies as well as mutual fund schemes involve pooling of common men's money. There is bound to be some overlapping. while Insurance schemes are regulated by IRDA, SEBI monitors the mutual funds and stock markets. There may be some overlapping. while some mutual funds schemes have insurance schemes like ULI of UTI Mutual Fund, Dhan Raksha of LIC mutual fund, the insurance companies have ULIP which carry features of mutual funds. The more dominant character of scheme- insurance or mutual fund- should be criteria. In all fairness, IRDA monitors insurance and basic character of ULIP of Insurance companies is insurance. Hence, SEBI should not interfere with schemes of Insurance companies.
There must be no room for dispute between different agencies and there must be no ego problem in this context. The Ministry of Finance must interfere to see that such funny situations do not arise.

If the plea of the SEBI is accepted, the result will be chaotic. By this logic, postal life insurance (P.L.I.) of Department of Posts, Army Group Insurance Scheme, Central govt employees Insurance schemes, Deposit Linked insurance scheme all run by Govt. department/ defence should be monitored by IRDA. SEBI should be asked to restrict itself.

Gulshan as you said SEBI should not interfere but if ULIP money is going to invest in equities So They should get the permission from SEBi because The definition says Mutual fund is common man's money and it should have a clear goal of investment but ULIP has no goal they just suggest there client to invest in equities and get signature from clients this is also not a good practice by Insurance companies just to get Good number of policies and to get high amount of premium values

In the competition era, the competition also extended to Life insurance field. Due to this companies are trying to grab the policy holders by showing big amount of returns through ULIP scheme.

If share market is in high, the police holder gets high amount. or otherwise, policy holder will loss.

" Insurgence company not takes any responsibility"

Soubhagya Das- ULIP have characteristics of mutual funds. Yet these are basically insurance policies. It is not feasible to place any company under two regulatory bodies. SEBI and IRDA both cannot control a company. The ministry of finance must immediately intervene.

The Finance Minister has,indeed, intervened by making a statement to maintain status quo on this issue.

When heard the news I just remembered the words I told to an advisor of ICICI some months ago.But I took a policy and am now worried.

Not to worried Abid alreay SEBI has withdraw its ban from ULIP and ULIP is a good investment plat form but I suggest all who want to purchase ULIP.
DOnt go for that.
Suppose you want to Invest in ULIP RS20,000 per year pay rs3,000 for a term insurance and Rest Rs17,000 in different mutual fund which will give you more benefit and more life coverage.
believe its the fact

The Govt. of India and the bodies created by them are really in a very pitiable state. In stead of resolving the issue, the Ministry of finance has directed IRDA and SEBI to maintain status que and refer matter to court.
This is very sorry state of affairs. Just think what will happen if same type of dispute arises in matter of security- internal or external. suppose that dispute arises between Army and Air force. Will Ministry of Defence ask them to maintain status quo and go to court. The government is to take decision. Such reference to court simply invites judicial activism which is against the scheme of constitution that depends on three independent entities- executive, legislature and judiciary.

It is,indeed, a very sorry state of affairs.Out of the 30000 insurances policies some 9000 belong to the ULIP variety.It's almost ten years and now these two bodies are engaged in one of the most unseemly turf wars!