IRDAI Proposes Ban on Dark Patterns at Insurance Sites: What Online Policy Buyers Stand to Gain

The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) has proposed banning so-called 'dark patterns' on insurance websites, according to reporting by MillenniumPost. In plain terms, insurers and their online platforms would be barred from using interface tricks that push buyers into choices they did not clearly make.

For a policy buyer, the point is simple: if the proposal is finalised, the price, add-ons and terms you see on screen should be the ones you knowingly agreed to. Until then, nothing has changed at checkout, and the safest habit is to read every pre-selected box yourself.

This article explains what dark patterns are, how they can inflate what you pay for insurance, what the proposal could change, and a checklist you can use today. We only have the reported headline, so we do not describe the draft's clauses, deadlines or penalties. Where those details matter, we say so and point you to the regulator.

Key takeaways

• IRDAI has proposed a ban on dark patterns on insurance websites, as reported by MillenniumPost. It is a proposal, not yet a rule you can rely on.
• Dark patterns are design tricks such as pre-ticked add-ons, hidden costs and confusing opt-outs that steer buyers toward choices they did not clearly make.
• A small unnoticed add-on can add roughly 10% to a premium, and it repeats every renewal if nobody removes it.
• Nothing changes at checkout today. Check every box and the final payable amount yourself before paying.
• Details such as scope, penalties and the timeline are not in the headline, so read the regulator's own text once it is published.

What are dark patterns on insurance websites?

A dark pattern is a design choice that exploits how people behave on screens to get a result the company wants, rather than the one the customer would choose with a clear view. The design is not a bug. It works because most of us skim, tap quickly and trust default settings.

On an insurance page, the familiar examples look like this:

• Pre-ticked add-ons: riders, extended cover or 'assistance' packages already selected when you reach the payment step, so declining takes effort while accepting takes none.
• Drip pricing: an attractive first quote that grows through the journey as charges appear one screen at a time.
• False urgency: countdown timers or 'only a few quotes left' messages that have nothing to do with how insurance is actually priced.
• Confirm-shaming: an opt-out button worded to make you feel careless, such as 'No, I don't want to protect my family'.
• Buried opt-outs: a decline option in small grey text next to a bright, large accept button.
• Bundled consent: a single tick that agrees to the policy, marketing calls and data sharing together.

None of this is unique to insurance. It shows up in travel, food delivery and e-commerce as well. What makes insurance different is the stakes. A product bought under pressure or by accident can shape whether a hospital claim is paid years later, and the buyer often cannot judge the product without reading long documents.

What the IRDAI proposal could change for buyers

The headline tells us the regulator wants such practices banned on insurance sites. It does not tell us the exact definition it uses, which entities are covered (insurers only, or also brokers, web aggregators and corporate agents), or what the consequences of a breach would be. Treat anything more specific than that with caution until the text is out.

What we can say, from how insurance regulation generally works, is what a ban of this kind would be trying to achieve:

1. Clear consent: add-ons and optional covers would need an active choice by the buyer rather than a default.
2. Honest pricing: the amount shown early would be the amount you pay, with charges visible before the final step.
3. Neutral wording: declining an option would not be presented as a mistake.
4. Separate permissions: agreeing to buy a policy would not automatically mean agreeing to marketing or data sharing.

Regulators in India usually publish proposals as drafts and invite comments before finalising them. If that path is followed here, the final rule could differ from the draft. The IRDAI website at irdai.gov.in is where regulatory documents are published, and it is the right place to read the actual language.

This also fits a wider pattern. Financial regulators have been pressing lenders and insurers on transparency at the point of sale, for example on how charges and terms are disclosed. If you follow lending and insurance developments, our news hub tracks them as they are reported.

Worked example: how a small add-on becomes a large cost

The figures below are illustrative, built from typical premium ranges rather than from the reporting. They show why a design trick that seems minor can matter.

Suppose you buy a family health policy online with a base premium of ₹22,000 a year. During checkout, an add-on costing ₹2,500 a year is pre-selected, and you do not notice it.

Item	Year 1	Over 5 years (same premium)
Base premium you chose	₹22,000	₹1,10,000
Pre-ticked add-on you did not choose	₹2,500	₹12,500
Total you pay	₹24,500	₹1,22,500
Add-on as a share of base premium	about 11%	about 11%

Premiums typically rise at renewal, so real totals would be higher. The point is that the add-on renews quietly with the policy. Many buyers only see the breakup when they try to claim, or never.

The same logic applies to a term life policy. If the base premium is ₹14,000 a year and an unrequested rider costs ₹1,200, that is roughly 8.6% extra, or ₹24,000 over 20 years, before you have decided whether you need the rider at all.

The lesson for readers is to compare the final payable amount with the first quote. If they differ, find the line that explains the gap before you pay.

Who is affected, and who is not

Likely to be affected:

• Anyone buying or renewing health, term life, motor or travel insurance through an insurer's site or app.
• First-time online buyers, who are less likely to know what a normal checkout looks like.
• Senior citizens and people using small screens, where fine print and small buttons are easy to miss.
• Customers who buy insurance alongside a loan, since bundled cover can appear as a default at the final step. If you are taking a personal loan or a home loan, check whether any insurance is optional before agreeing to it.

Less likely to notice a difference:

• People who buy through an agent or over the counter, where the sale happens in conversation rather than on a screen. The proposal is about websites, so it does not by itself address selling practices offline.
• Buyers who already read every line of the checkout page. They lose little, but they also gain little.

Insurers and platforms whose revenue relies on add-on take-up driven by defaults would have to redesign journeys. Those that already ask for explicit opt-ins should not find it hard.

What to do now when buying insurance online

The proposal is not a rule yet, so the protection has to come from you. A short routine catches most of the problems described above.

1. Note the first quote. Screenshot or write down the premium you see at the start.
2. Scroll every page. Look for pre-ticked boxes, add-ons and 'recommended' bundles, and untick what you do not need.
3. Compare the final amount with your first quote. Ask what each extra rupee is for.
4. Read the premium breakup on the summary page and in the confirmation email.
5. Separate consents. Decline marketing and data-sharing permissions if you do not want them.
6. Use the free-look period. Insurance policies generally allow a short window after receiving the policy to review it and cancel if it does not match what you meant to buy. Check the exact period in your policy document.
7. Keep records. Save the confirmation email and the policy schedule so you can show what you agreed to.

If a payment is a stretch, it also helps to know what you can afford before choosing cover. Our EMI calculator is useful for checking the monthly load when a premium is paid alongside loan repayments.

Common mistakes and outlook

Mistakes buyers make

• Assuming the cheapest quote on the first screen is the final price.
• Treating 'recommended' as meaning 'necessary'.
• Accepting a bundle because unticking each item looks like too much effort.
• Skipping the policy schedule after payment, where the add-ons are actually listed.
• Believing a regulatory proposal already protects them. Until a rule is final and in force, the checkout page is your responsibility.

Outlook

We do not know when, or in what form, the proposal will become binding. If it is finalised, expect changes to how consent screens and price displays look on insurer and aggregator sites, and expect complaints about non-compliance to become a topic in their own right. Even then, the underlying questions of whether you need a cover, whether the sum insured is adequate and whether the insurer settles claims well will remain yours to answer. A better-designed checkout makes that decision cleaner. It does not make it for you.

Frequently asked questions

What is a dark pattern in insurance?

It is a design trick on a website or app that nudges you into a choice you did not clearly make, such as a pre-ticked add-on, a hidden charge or a decline button worded to make you feel careless. The aim is to raise sales or premium, not to help you decide.

Is the IRDAI ban already in force?

According to MillenniumPost's reporting, IRDAI has proposed the ban. A proposal is not a final rule, and we do not know the final text or timeline. Check the regulator's website for official documents.

Will this make insurance premiums cheaper?

Not directly. The proposal is about how choices and prices are presented, not about the base price of a policy. It could reduce what people pay by accident, such as unnoticed add-ons, but it does not set premium rates.

What should I do if I think I was pushed into an add-on?

Check your policy schedule to see what was added, then contact the insurer's customer service in writing and ask for it to be removed or refunded, especially if you are within the free-look period. If you are not satisfied with the reply, the grievance routes listed on the regulator's website are the next step.