A 90-year-old man from Nagpur was allegedly mis-sold a long-term life insurance policy by a Canara Bank branch manager that has shocked social media and consumer rights advocates alike.

The policy, carrying an annual premium of ₹2 lakh, was taken out on the nonagenarian’s account last year and has already led to deductions totalling ₹4 lakh – a sizeable portion of his life savings.

Disturbingly, the product’s maturity date has been reported as 2124, far beyond any reasonable lifespan for someone of his age, prompting outrage and questions over ethics, consent, age suitability, and regulatory safeguards for senior citizens.

In response to the public uproar, Canara Bank officials – including the regional head and the manager involved – reportedly visited the man’s residence, assuring the family that the deducted premiums will be refunded within a week.

While the bank has acknowledged the inconvenience and said it has referred the matter to the relevant internal team, it has not publicly addressed the core allegations of mis-selling or procedural lapses.

How the Policy Was Sold – Pressure and Confusion

According to the family and social media posts by a relative, the man, identified as Venkatachalam V. Iyer, had been a long-standing customer of the same Canara Bank branch. In early 2025, he was reportedly approached by the branch manager and urged to agree to what was described as an “urgent” and “very important” insurance product.

Under this pressure, and due to his advanced age and limited financial awareness, Iyer allegedly agreed to the policy without fully understanding its nature, terms, or implications.

The first annual premium of ₹2 lakh was subsequently debited from his savings account. A year later, when a second alert arrived regarding the next premium, the family began examining the paperwork – only to discover a policy slated to mature in the year 2124, an unrealistic expectation for a 90-year-old. Over two years, ₹4 lakh had already been deducted from his account before the situation came to light.

Worryingly, the insurance product was reportedly structured in a way that listed the elderly man’s daughter as the “life assured” while the senior remained the primary account holder whose funds funded the premiums. Critics have suggested this may have been done to circumvent age limits usually imposed on life insurance products.

Regulatory and Ethical Concerns – More Than an Isolated Case

The alleged mis-selling has sparked broader debate beyond Nagpur, raising questions about bank-led insurance sales practices and the vulnerability of elderly customers to aggressive or misrepresented financial products.

While the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) has previously maintained that mis-selling of life cover is “not at alarming levels,” consumer advocates argue that individual stories like this expose deeper systemic issues around informed consent and product suitability.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and other regulators have acknowledged the need to tighten guidelines and oversight on bancassurance and financial product distribution to prevent mis-selling – especially among segmented groups such as senior citizens who may lack financial literacy or awareness.

Proposed measures are expected to emphasise product suitability, clear disclosures, and strict documentation standards for third-party products such as insurance.

Consumer activists have also pointed to the broader ecosystem of complaints where elderly individuals are mis-sold products disguised as safer instruments or, worse, pressured through institutional authority to consent without fully appreciating the terms.

Anecdotal reports on social media and forums describe instances where seniors were misled into policies instead of fixed deposits, or where products were signed during routine transactions without adequate explanation – practices that erode trust and security.

Family’s Reaction and Potential Legal Recourse

The family’s public complaint has drawn widespread sympathy, but also practical advice from netizens and consumer rights supporters. Some have urged the relatives to file formal written complaints with both the bank and the insurance company.

If unresolved within the mandated period, escalation to the RBI Ombudsman and lodgement with IRDAI’s grievance portal were among the recommended steps to secure redress, including full refunds or compensation where mis-selling can be established.

Several social media users also highlighted that most long-tenure insurance plans legally enforce a cap on entry age, often at 80 or below for conventional policies – making a century-long product marketed to a 90-year-old both unusual and potentially non-compliant with industry norms. This has spurred calls for a formal investigation by both bank auditors and financial regulators.

The bank’s assurance of a refund has provided some immediate relief, but the family continues to demand clear explanations, accountability for the manager involved, and systemic changes to ensure no other senior citizen faces similar exploitation.

Canara Bank Responds on X

Canara Bank issued a brief response on X to Saketh’s post, stating, “Hi Saketh, we regret the inconvenience caused to you. We will forward it to the concerned team. Also, we would request you to refrain from sharing your personal information openly on the public platform.”

However, the bank’s public reply did not directly address the allegations of mis-selling or concerns over the suitability of selling a long-term insurance policy to a 90-year-old customer.

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

This episode is a stark reminder that trust in financial institutions must be matched with transparency, respect and robust consumer safeguards – especially for those in their twilight years. Senior citizens, having spent decades building savings and financial security, deserve clarity, dignity, and protection against predatory or uninformed practices.

The apparent ease with which a complex, long-duration policy could be imposed on a nonagenarian speaks to gaps in both institutional responsibility and regulatory enforcement.

Beyond individual accountability, this case should prompt banks, insurers and regulators to implement more stringent suitability assessments, clear verbal and written explanations, and independent consent mechanisms that ensure elderly clients truly understand what they are signing up for.

Retail banking is about more than transactions – it is about empowering customers with information and trust.

As grassroots awareness grows, it is vital that we not only demand accountability for this specific incident, but also advocate for systemic changes that make financial exploitation harder and financial literacy stronger across all age groups.