India’s shifting risk appetite: From refund culture to insurance claims

The complacency of online ordering has taken over the hustle of visiting offline general stores. In a familiar urban scenario, ordering groceries via quick-commerce applications has become routine, with platforms promising rapid delivery. Upon delivery of the order, if a perishable item is damaged, spoiled, or materially different from what was ordered, a refund request is often raised. For certain categories, particularly perishables, platforms may process reimbursements quickly and may not require the goods to be returned.

While platforms often view this return-and-reimburse trend as a necessary cost of customer acquisition, it signals a broader macroeconomic and behavioural shift. It reflects a growing environment where ordinary commercial friction is frequently erased or algorithmically subsidised. This phenomenon raises a vital question for legal policy: when individuals become accustomed to facing minimal inconvenience in daily transactions, does the general appetite to bear risk begin to diminish? For India's insurance sector, this question is no longer theoretical.

India's digital economy has cultivated an expectation of commercial reversibility. If a service falls short, compensation is often immediate. While this frictionless ecosystem has built considerable trust in e-commerce, these behavioural patterns frequently extend beyond low-value retail transactions.

The expectation of swift restitution can migrate into complex risk-transfer arrangements, such as health, travel, and appliance insurance. Individuals habituated to immediate refunds may develop a different perspective on the nature of insurance risk. Instead of viewing insurance primarily as a pooled mechanism designed to mitigate unforeseen, high-stakes contingencies, there is a tendency to approach it as a system to offset minor inconveniences. Consequently, the general risk appetite may shrink, blurring the legal lines between standard insurance claims and expectations of commercial restitution.

Recognising that digital interfaces can influence consent through choice architecture, India's regulatory response regarding corporate platforms has been decisive. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) and the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) have both moved to address deceptive digital design in the financial services space. This dual regulatory attention underscores just how seriously the law now treats the architecture of digital consent.

The CCPA enacted the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023, under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. These guidelines prohibit practices such as false urgency, basket sneaking, and subscription traps; amongst others. As insurance contracts are legally complex, IRDAI directed regulated entities to align with the CCPA framework. This intervention establishes that the law views deceptive digital design as actionable conduct.

While the law often operates on the premise of institutional responsibility towards the general public, digital systems function bi-directionally. With platforms offering seamless refunds and automated claims, a reduced tolerance for risk can sometimes transition into strategic platform usage. The concern here is not conventional insurance fraud, such as forged documents or fabricated losses, but a subtler form of risk-shifting enabled by digital timing, low-friction onboarding, and automated claims processing. These newer behavioural patterns operate in a nuanced space between maximising platform benefits and straining pooled trust.

The primary archetypes of this behaviour impact the assessment of insurance risk:

Foreseeable travel optimization: Individuals might monitor escalating weather anomalies or political disruptions. Before underwriting algorithms adjust, low-friction travel policies are sometimes purchased to claim imminent cancellation benefits, transferring a near-certainty rather than an unforeseen risk. In effect, the insurance product is being used as a reimbursement tool rather than a risk-covering mechanism.

Strategic Portability: Health insurance portability is a crucial right. However, this mechanism can be strained when digital porting routes are utilised immediately following a critical diagnosis to shift a crystallised risk to a new insurer with minimal medical scrutiny. The right to port, designed to protect genuine consumer mobility, can be repurposed to offload known, imminent liabilities.

Algorithmic Claim Saturation: To minimise operational costs, digital insurers frequently settle micro-claims automatically. This can lead to an increase in borderline claims positioned just below the manual verification threshold, as systems tend to pay out when individual investigations are economically unviable. Over time, this erodes the actuarial assumptions that keep premiums sustainable for all policyholders.

Indian consumer protection jurisprudence primarily focuses on the conduct of market actors. Consequently, insurers often rely on doctrines like uberrimae fidei (utmost good faith) to address the suppression of material facts.

However, discharging the burden of proof regarding intent and materiality becomes complex when the relevant conduct consists largely of automated or timed interactions on pre-filled digital forms. The evidentiary challenge is significant: a policyholder who purchases travel insurance at 11 PM after checking a storm forecast has not forged a document or concealed a fact. Yet the intent may be no different from any other who has.

These modern nuances can challenge the foundational mathematics of insurance risk, where premiums from the many must fund the actual losses of the few. When reduced risk tolerance drives an increase in claim frequencies, the economic impact is shared. Insurers often recalibrate by adjusting premiums, refining policy exclusions, and intensifying scrutiny during onboarding. Ultimately, the broader policyholder base may end up absorbing the costs associated with treating risk pools similarly to retail refund mechanisms.

Regulatory vigilance against unfair corporate designs remains indispensable. However, legal policy must acknowledge that a sustainable insurance ecosystem benefits from reciprocal, good-faith participation. The future of digital law may need to evolve past the binary narrative of the omnipotent provider and the vulnerable user.

To protect the integrity of insurance pools, systems could integrate "fair friction" into high-risk digital touchpoints. This could include proportionate safeguards such as enhanced review of last-minute travel policies purchased in the face of publicly known disruptions, neutral prompts clarifying disclosure obligations during digital health insurance portability, or human review of unusually frequent micro-claims that cross transparent risk thresholds. The goal is not to disadvantage honest claimants but to restore a proportionate layer of deliberation where it has been entirely automated away.

The narrative that begins with an immediate grocery refund highlights an evolving challenge in the legal architecture of commerce. If the instant reimbursement structures popularised by quick-commerce platforms permanently shift how risk is perceived and handled, the structural viability of shared insurance risk could face significant pressure. While the law can regulate interfaces, ensuring the sustainability of a pooled economy requires fostering the one element that algorithms cannot easily replicate: bidirectional trust and mutual good faith.

About the author: Komal Singh is an Associate at ElpeeCo.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.