Solutions · Insurance

Ten years. Twelve for a death claim.
And a right to erase.

IRDAI’s 2025 maintenance regulations keep every record at least ten years from the last transaction or policy expiry, and claims documents on a slab that reaches twelve years for the largest claims. The DPDP Act gives the policyholder — and, after death, the nominee — a right to erasure over exactly those records. The correct answer to most erasure requests an insurer will receive is a lawful partial refusal, and the refusal must itself be evidenced, record by record, with a diary date. That workflow exists nowhere in the sector’s tooling today.

FROM THE SEPTEMBER 2026 PROBLEM REGISTER · 10 PROBLEMS SWEPT · 4 SHOWN HERE · HOW THIS WAS BUILT

What the ground actually looks like

Four collisions, each read from the instrument.

Each of these is marked confirmed: two independent sources, at least one the instrument itself or a practitioner record — here including a public procurement document and a published regulatory order.

01 · RETENTION VS ERASURE

Insurers must refuse or partially refuse erasure requests to honour IRDAI retention, and need a documented refusal workflow that today exists nowhere in their tooling.

DPDP s.8(7) and Rule 8 meet the IRDAI (Maintenance of Information by the Regulated Entities and Sharing of Information by the Authority) Regulations, 2025: Regulation 16 keeps records a minimum of ten years from the last transaction or policy expiry; Schedule I clause 8 keeps claims documents three, five, seven or twelve years from settlement, by claim size. In July 2026 India’s largest insurer issued a public RFP to procure “Data Principal Rights Management” and eleven other DPDP modules — ten months before the May 2027 date.

SOURCES · IRDAI Maintenance of Information Regulations, 2025 (instrument, clause-read) · LIC RFP, 13 Jul 2026 — DPDPA tools (public procurement document)

Confirmed · sweep of 2 Sep 2026
02 · THE PROPOSAL-FORM SIGNATURE

One signature covering underwriting, claims, analytics and marketing does not meet s.6 — and DPDP has no “contract performance” basis to fall back on.

Section 6(1) requires consent that is free, specific, informed, unconditional and unambiguous, limited to the specified purpose; Rule 3 requires an itemised notice. DPDP’s only non-consent bases are the s.7 legitimate uses, and contractual necessity is not among them — so historical health data cannot be re-based for automated underwriting or renewal pricing the way GDPR allows. This touches the first document of every sale.

SOURCES · DPDP Act s.6, s.7 (statute) · LIC RFP (practitioner — consent management and notice management procured as new capabilities) · Tuli & Co on the Rules and the insurance sector (context)

Confirmed · the largest process change DPDP forces on insurers
03 · THE NOMINEE’S RIGHT VS THE DEATH CLAIM

A nominee can exercise a deceased policyholder’s rights — including erasure of medical records — precisely when the death-claim file must be kept up to twelve years.

DPDP s.14 lets a nominee exercise the deceased’s rights. IRDAI Schedule I clause 8 keeps claims of twenty lakh rupees and above — most modern term-policy death claims — for twelve years from settlement. The nominee-initiated erasure must be partially refused for over a decade, while the insurer simultaneously owes the nominee’s own personal data the full fiduciary duty: a second data principal inside the same record. Erasing evidence needed in a repudiation dispute and refusing without a lawful basis are both high-consequence errors.

SOURCES · DPDP Act s.14, s.12 (statute) · IRDAI 2025 Regulations, Schedule I cl. 8 (instrument) · Interplay between insurance and data protection (context)

Confirmed · the sharpest rights request an insurer receives
04 · THIRTY-THREE LAKH AGENTS, OFFLINE

Individual agents hold proposal forms and medical reports personally and on paper; the fiduciary has no consent evidence for that sprawl — and regulatory enforcement already shows the gap.

Section 8(1) makes the fiduciary responsible for processing on its behalf and s.6(10) puts the burden of proving consent on it. Life insurance alone works through roughly thirty-three lakh individual agents. In 2025 an IRDAI order against a web aggregator recorded around a hundred thousand telemarketing-led policies whose call recordings were incomplete or unavailable — the consent-evidence failure DPDP will make decisive. Digital point-of-sale journeys address new business; nothing addresses the data agents already hold.

SOURCES · DPDP Act s.8(1), s.6(10) (statute) · IRDAI order, Aug 2025, as reported (enforcement record) · Life Insurance Council agent count (practitioner)

Confirmed · a scale collision on the least-instrumented channel
What the law actually says — and what it doesn’t

Claims we corrected before putting them here.

Insurance was the sector where the AI research drafts were most wrong on retention. The register read the 2025 regulations at clause level and replaced every stale figure.

“Claims records: seven years” is wrong as a flat rule.

Schedule I clause 8 of the 2025 regulations is a slab: three years below one lakh, five to ten lakh, seven to twenty lakh, and twelve years at twenty lakh and above — all from settlement. “Seven years” is true for one slab only.

“Policy records: life of policy plus five years” is wrong.

Regulation 16: a minimum of ten years from the last transaction or policy expiry, longer where another law requires it. No “plus five” rule exists in the current instrument.

The 2015 maintenance-of-records regulations are repealed.

Regulation 18(i) of the 2025 regulations repealed the 2015, 2020 and 2012 instruments. Any material citing the 2015 regulations as the retention source is stale. Their one surviving contribution — records of Indian policies and claims held in data centres in India only — now lives at Regulation 9(iii).

The nominee right is section 14, not section 15.

Section 15 sets out data principals’ duties. A nominee acting after death or incapacity is a rights-agent under s.14 — not an heir, and not the same thing as a nominee under the policy.

“Consent collected decades ago is invalid” overstates it.

Section 5(2) allows continued processing of pre-Act consented data. The real obligations are the notice owed to every legacy policyholder “as soon as reasonably practicable” and the s.6(10) burden of proof — a notice-delivery and evidence problem across long-tenure books whose contact details the policy has outlived, not wholesale re-consenting. No insurer has been designated a Significant Data Fiduciary, and no DPDP penalty can be imposed on anyone before mid-May 2027; the schedule is stated plainly here, once.

RULES NOTIFIED MID-NOV 2025 · CONSENT-MANAGER REGISTRATION OPENS MID-NOV 2026 · DUTIES, RIGHTS AND PENALTIES MID-MAY 2027 · DATES STATED AS THE NOTIFICATIONS STATE THEM

Where Consent Tree fits today

The refusal, evidenced.
The signature, unbundled.

Everything below is live today and maps to shipped code — the same rule as every page on this site. Capabilities we are still building are not listed here.

FOR 01 AND 03 · THE PARTIAL REFUSAL

A rights request executed, timed and evidenced — with the refusal on the same record

Every access, correction and erasure request carries a response deadline computed when it is filed and an escalation ladder when it slips. An erasure cannot be marked complete unless its execution path is configured, and the destruction is recorded, not asserted. The written refusal for a record IRDAI holds for twelve years lands in the same audit chain, dated and attributable — the diary entry the regulator can read.

Live: DSR orchestration · SLA tracking · grievance workflows
FOR 02 · THE PROPOSAL FORM

Consent per purpose, versioned, withdrawable — the signature taken apart

Underwriting, claims, analytics and marketing become separate, specified purposes with separate decisions; nothing is pre-ticked. Notices are versioned so a change forces re-consent and the old version stays on record. Withdrawal is as easy as the grant. Each decision produces a receipt the policyholder can keep and anyone can verify.

Live: purpose-by-purpose consent · versioned notices · PDF receipts
FOR THE LEGACY BOOK · THE NOTICE

One notice in twenty-two languages, translated on our own infrastructure

Notices and consent flows are rendered in the twenty-two languages of the Eighth Schedule by a self-hosted translation model — no third-party API. For the paper-and-agent channel in collision 04, this page does not claim a capture tool: what is live is consent evidence for the digital journey. We would rather say that than imply the agent’s folder is covered.

Live: notices & consent flows in 22 Indian languages
FOR ALL OF IT · EVIDENCE

An audit trail a regulator can verify without trusting us

Every consent, erasure, refusal and notice publication is a linked record bound to the one before it, and the chain is periodically stamped by an independent timestamp authority. When the s.6(10) burden falls on you, you produce a receipt that verifies in a browser, not a database row. Anyone can check it.

Live: tamper-evident audit trail · independent anchoring · verifiable receipts