Territorial scope of insurance law: foreign policies for overseas risks are not regulated merely because premium is collected in India

Indian insurance legislation does not extend to a foreign insurance transaction merely because premium is collected and policy documents are issued in India, where the insured risk is intended to arise and operate only outside India. The Insurance Act, 1938 was read territorially, and its definition provisions, restrictions in Sections 2C and 3, and Section 46 did not support extra-territorial application to foreign policies. The local collection of premium and issuance of certificates were treated as incidental acts, not as carrying on insurance business in India for IRDA registration or licensing purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Indian insurance laws and the regulatory powers under the IRDA framework applied to the appellant's activity of selling foreign insurance policies for risks covered only outside India; (ii) whether the appellant's collection of premium in India and issuance of certificates in India amounted to carrying on insurance business in India so as to require registration or licence from the IRDA.

Issue (i): whether the Indian insurance laws and the regulatory powers under the IRDA framework applied to the appellant's activity of selling foreign insurance policies for risks covered only outside India.

Analysis: The relevant provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 were examined in the light of the territorial presumption applicable to Indian legislation and the absence of any indication that Parliament intended the insurance law to operate beyond India. The definition clauses, the restrictions in Sections 2C and 3, and the reference in Section 46 to policies issued in respect of insurance business transacted in India did not support extra-territorial application to foreign policies operative only abroad. The Foreign Exchange Management (Insurance) Regulations, 2000 also did not prohibit the kind of medical or accident cover involved for travellers abroad.

Conclusion: The Indian insurance law did not apply to the appellant's foreign insurance activity.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant's collection of premium in India and issuance of certificates in India amounted to carrying on insurance business in India so as to require registration or licence from the IRDA.

Analysis: The decisive feature of insurance business is the assumption and coverage of risk. Where the policy is intended to operate only outside India and is not enforceable while the insured is in India, the local collection of premium and issuance of the policy are only incidental acts and do not convert the transaction into insurance business in India. On that basis, the regulatory provisions invoked by the IRDA could not justify stopping the appellant from facilitating the purchase of such policies in India.

Conclusion: The appellant was not carrying on insurance business in India in the sense required to attract the IRDA registration or licensing regime.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside, with the appellant held entitled to continue the activity in question unless a specific law is enacted to regulate it.

Ratio Decidendi: Indian insurance legislation does not extend to a foreign insurance transaction merely because premium is collected and the policy is issued in India, if the risk covered is to arise and operate only outside India.

---