Kathmandu. The latest dispute within Nepal Life Insurance Company is no longer just a matter of dispute between agents. When the agents of the company are divided into two streams and start blaming each other, it has a direct impact on the psychology of the insured. The statements, videos, sloganeering and counter-arguments made public on social media have raised a serious question: Why should the insured pay the price for the internal dispute of the agent?
One of the biggest pillars of the insurance business is trust. The insured sets aside the amount from his current income and trusts the insurance company for years. He does not insure the company’s financial position, bonuses, returns, or the internal politics of management. He trusts the agent, trusts the company, and pays money in the hope that he and his family will be safe in the future.
Therefore, when the dispute within the company is public, it is natural for the first question to arise in the mind of the insured. Questions like ‘Is my money safe or not?’, ‘Was the information given to me while insuring me correct or not?’, ‘How genuine was the guarantee of bonus?’
Whatever may be the root cause of the current controversy in Nepal Life, the way it is being resolved publicly seems to be worrisome. If one side raises serious questions about the company, the other defends it, and the accusations and counter-accusations continue on social media, then the real issues at the center of the controversy can be overlooked.
More seriously, if the parties responsible for resolving the dispute continue to blame each other publicly, the company’s reputation suffers. When a company’s reputation is damaged, it affects not only the income of the agent, but also the trust of thousands of insured. The new business is affected, the old insured becomes suspicious, and ultimately the credibility of the company built over a long period of time may be undermined.
But this does not mean that the agents who question the company are wrong. If there is a genuine problem with bonuses, awards, employees’ performance, treatment of agents or any other issue, then there should be an impartial investigation. If there is a problem within the company, an environment should be created to solve it with facts, not suppress it. It is not a crime to raise questions. But making unsubstantiated allegations in the name of raising questions, propagating in a way that terrorizes the insured or raising unnecessary questions on the very existence of the institution is not responsible behavior.
Similarly, agents who defend a company should avoid the tendency to dismiss critics as “trying to ruin the company.” If the company is good, it can be shown by facts and evidence. If the insured’s money is safe, the company can make transparent statements. If there is a dispute about the bonus, the official rate and its basis can be clarified. If there is a question about the distribution of the award, the criteria can be made public. The answer should be given through facts, not threats.
The role of management is even bigger. The CEO or top management should be the last resort to warn the agent of action. Dialogue first, then fact-checking and fair action if necessary – this is the best way. If the management does not solve the problem by keeping all the parties on the same table, the dispute can spread further through social media.
Agents, on the other hand, need to understand one thing—the company is not your personal battleground. There may be a disagreement with the company, there may be a complaint with the management, there may be a dissatisfaction with the award, you may raise your voice about your rights. But the insured should not be placed in the middle of that struggle.
The insured does not need to know the internal politics of the company. He needs to know clearly the status of his policy, the benefits he gets, bonuses, premiums, claim payments and future security. It is not acceptable for the insured to have to think all night about what will happen to my money now due to the conflict between the agent and the management.
Another important aspect in this case is the role of the regulator. The regulator should be able to provide evidence-based clarity so that the psychology of the insured is not affected by the dispute in the insurance sector. If the company is really safe, it should be statistically disclosed. If there is a violation of any rules, an investigation should be conducted. Silence or delay can give more strength to the rumor.
The most important thing at this point is for both sides to take a step back. Let one side acknowledge the mistakes in its language and style, and let the other acknowledge its shortcomings. Those who question the company should speak only after verifying the facts. Those who defend the company should answer the real question, not run away from it, but with evidence. Management should prioritize communication over threats.
Most importantly, the insured should not be allowed to fall prey to this dispute.
Nepal Life is not just a company, it is associated with the future of thousands of families. Therefore, the current debate should not be seen as a competition of ‘who won and who lost’. The victory should be for the company, the victory should be for the insured, the victory should be for the trust.
Ultimately, it would be wise for both sides to admit their mistakes and return to dialogue. A word spoken on social media today can ruin a company’s reputation for years. Therefore, agents, management and regulators should all exercise restraint.
The Nepal Life Incident should not be repeated. If there is a dispute, it should be resolved through dialogue, if there is an accusation, it should be proved by facts and in case of a mistake, both sides should be able to openly say ‘we made a mistake’. But under no circumstances should the insured have to pay the price of the dispute between the agent and the management.
This is the biggest need of the hour. See also:
Controversy in Nepal Life: Agent carrying a bag of ‘documents’ about Amit Kayal
Nepal Life Insurance case: CEO threatens to take action against agents
Nepal Life Scam: Dozens of agents go live on Facebook after insured asks for money guarantee
‘Excesses’ on Nepal Life Agents: Association angry after being arrested in felicitation program
Nepal Life Insurance Company (NLIC) has demanded the arrest of its CEO.
