BestWorstInsurance

India · Doctors indemnity · Master comparison

Every Doctors' Indemnity Policy in India, Compared on 11 Terms

By Best Worst Insurance Editorial TeamUpdated 17 August 2026

This is every professional indemnity product an Indian doctor can buy, compared on the eleven terms that decide what happens when a patient sues — built from the filed wordings, prospectuses and customer information sheets themselves, not from brochures. Two of the products a doctor is most likely to be sold cannot be shown to cover malpractice at all on their published paper: Tata AIG's Professional Shield excludes bodily injury outright [1] and Bajaj's wording defines "Loss" to exclude it [2], while SBI General has no doctors' product whatsoever [3] and Future Generali publishes no document at all [4]. The ranking spine below is not price and not brand — it is whether the insurer will let you read what you are buying. Only HDFC ERGO's Mediserve publishes its complete document set [5,6], and it is also the only product that accepts no claim once the policy has expired [5]. No settlement data exists to break any of these ties, because no Indian regulator publishes claim figures for this line at all [7,8,9,10].

Every doctors' indemnity product in India, on the 11 terms that decide claims

Documents accessed July 2026. Where a cell reads "not published", the insurer publishes nothing on that point in any primary document we could locate — that is a finding, not a gap in our research [4]. Scores in the transparency column are ours, from the weighting set out in the methodology above.

Carrier & productCovers malpractice on the published wording?Documentation transparency (our score /10)Post-expiry reporting windowCompulsory excessDefence costs vs the limitWho controls the defenceRetroactive date & claims-made mechanicsAOA:AOY ratio published?Cosmetic & reconstructive workWho else is insuredFine print that defeats claims
New India Assurance — Doctors PI; no UIN publishedYes — 1991 Market Agreement lineage, responds to bodily injury on its face [22,11,15,13]3 — the wording survives only on an intermediary's site; no UIN, prospectus or CIS [11,12]90 days [11,15,13,16,14,17]None [11,22]Within the limit, but paid "whether liability ultimately attaches to the policy or not" [11][11,25,15,13,16,5,14,17,2,1,24]Insurer's consent required; no hammer clause [2,1,24]Claims-made with a retroactive date; notified circumstances become deemed claimsFull menu, 1:1 to 1:4 [12]Cosmesis excluded; burns, trauma and scar repair preserved [11,15,16,14,17,23,13,5]Assistants only if named in the Schedule; nurses and technicians automatic [11,23][11,23]12-month sue-or-abandon; 3-year claims-series cutoff; no annual-limit reinstatement [11,15,13,16,14,17,5][11,15,13,16,14,17][11,15,13,16,14,17]
United India — Doctors PI; UIN IRDAN545RP0294V01200708Yes on the public CIS and prospectus and on the PSU lineage [22,11,15,13] — but the operative wording itself could not be located in any public source6 — CIS and prospectus current and own-hosted, wording nowhere; the prospectus opens by describing plate-glass cover [25]Not stated in either published document — unverifiable0.50% of the limit, min ₹5,000 / max ₹1,00,000 [23]Within the limit — total liability for damages including defence costs cannot exceed it [11,25,15,13,16,5,14,17,2,1,24]Consent and dispute terms sit in the unpublished wordingClaims-made with a retroactive date, per the CISNo menu — limits as opted, no ratio statedCosmetic surgery excluded flat, no burns or trauma carve-back [11,15,16,14,17,23,13,5]Assistants only if named in the Schedule; nurses and technicians automatic [11,23][11,23]Not published — the conditions that decide claims live in the wording nobody can read
National Insurance — Doctors PI; UIN IRDAN058RP0063V01200001Yes — near-verbatim identical to the New India and Oriental wordings [22,11,15,13]7.5 — the only PSU with its full wording live on its own site, marred by an excess figure that contradicts itself [15]90 days [11,15,13,16,14,17]Two different rates in one filed document — 0.25% in clause 7, ½% in the specimen schedule [15]Within the limit; defence spend reduces the limits of indemnity [11,25,15,13,16,5,14,17,2,1,24]Insurer's consent required; no hammer clause [2,1,24]Claims-made with a retroactive date; notification extension capped by the Limitation ActNo menu, and it labels the limits Any One Occurrence and aggregate rather than AOA and AOY [15]Cosmesis excluded; burns and trauma reconstruction preserved [11,15,16,14,17,23,13,5]Assistants only if named in the Schedule; nurses automatic; unqualified staff coverable for extra premium [11,23][11,23][15,22]12-month sue-or-abandon; 3-year claims-series cutoff; no annual-limit reinstatement [11,15,13,16,14,17,5][11,15,13,16,14,17][11,15,13,16,14,17]
Oriental Insurance — Doctors PI; UIN IRDAN556P0090V01200506Yes — 1991 Market Agreement lineage [22,11,15,13]2.5 — a site migration killed every document path; the filed wording now exists publicly only in web archives [13]90 days [11,15,13,16,14,17]None — the only PSU wording with zero compulsory and zero voluntary excess on its face [13,22]Within the limit — damages inclusive of defence costs cannot exceed the Any One Act limit [11,25,15,13,16,5,14,17,2,1,24]Insurer's consent required; no hammer clause [2,1,24]Claims-made with a retroactive date; notification extension; 3-year series cutoff [11,15,13,16,14,17]No menu in the wording; the Market Agreement guideline for doctors is 1:1 [22,11,15,13]Cosmetic surgery excluded flat, no carve-back — a burns-reconstruction surgeon covered at National is arguably not covered here [11,15,16,14,17,23,13,5]Assistants only if named in the Schedule; nurses and technicians automatic [11,23][11,23]12-month sue-or-abandon; no annual-limit reinstatement; cheque dishonour cancels cover from inception [11,15,13,16,14,17,5][11,15,13,16,14,17]
ICICI Lombard — Doctors PI; UIN IRDAN115RP0008V01200203Yes — the wording responds to death and bodily-injury claims [16]4.5 — the insurer's own domain blocks fetchers, so the reliable copy of a service-tax-era wording lives on IRDAI's site [16]90 days [11,15,13,16,14,17]Schedule-driven, no formula published — and applied to defence costs as well as damages [16]Within the limit; everything spent defending a claim reduces the sum insured [11,25,15,13,16,5,14,17,2,1,24]Insurer's consent required for any settlement, in or out of court; no hammer clause [2,1,24]Claims-made; a notified circumstance is a deemed claim only if a real claim follows within 3 years [16]Schedule template reads "AOA:AOY Ratio 1:__" — no menu publishedCosmesis excluded; burns and trauma reconstruction preserved [11,15,16,14,17,23,13,5]Each named assistant, nurse and technician indemnified separately, giving cross-liability — but the clinic entity is not insured [16]Quantum-only arbitration is a condition precedent to suit, exclusive Mumbai jurisdiction [16]; claim form within 14 days and liability lapses 3 months after an admission or order [16]; 12-month sue-or-abandon [11,15,13,16,14,17,5]; no reinstatement even for extra premium [11,15,13,16,14,17]
HDFC ERGO — Mediserve; UIN IRDAN146RPLB0084V01202526Yes — a doctors-specific wording written for 2025-26 [5]10 — the only doctors-specific product whose insurer publishes wording, prospectus and CIS on its own site [5,6]Zero days — "No claims should be reported post expiry of Policy" [5]Schedule-driven deductible, no formula publishedWithin the limit — all claim expenses are included in the limit of liability [11,25,15,13,16,5,14,17,2,1,24]No hammer clause [2,1,24], but the wording puts no duty to defend on the insurer while keeping its consent and takeover rightsClaims-made and reported; the retroactive date survives only on unbroken renewal — one lapsed day resets it [5]No menu published; a telehealth sublimit sits inside the limitCosmetic surgery excluded flat, no burns or trauma carve-back [11,15,16,14,17,23,13,5]Qualified assistants, nurses and technicians under an employment contract; doctors and establishments written on the same paper; terms up to 3 years [5,6]12-month sue-or-abandon [11,15,13,16,14,17,5]; modern exclusions for opioids, vaping, clinical trials, IVF and anaesthesia not given by an anaesthesiologist [5]
Bajaj General — generic PI; UIN IRDAN113RP0031V01200102No — "Loss" is defined as financial injury other than that arising out of bodily injury, so the published wording does not respond to malpractice [2]6 — wording own-hosted but generic; the doctors terms are unpublished and the arbitration clause body is blank in the published PDF [2]30 days, free — but only if the company cancels or refuses renewal, and only for incidents already reported during the period [2]An "Insured's Retained Amount" set in the schedule — and it applies to defence costs as well as damages [2]Within the limit — limits of insurance are inclusive of claims expenses [11,25,15,13,16,5,14,17,2,1,24]Hammer clause — liability capped at a settlement the doctor refused, plus costs to that date [2,1,24]No retroactive machinery at all in the published wording: incident and claim must both fall inside the policy period, even though the doctors' proposal form asks for a retroactive date [2]No menu published; the brochure example uses 1:1Not excluded in the published base wording; the retail brochure excludes cosmetic surgeons, so an unpublished endorsement is doing that workEmployees only for acts within the scope of their employment and under the insured's direction, control or supervision [2,24]"Notice of an incident is not notice of a claim" [2]; the policy is excess over any other collectible insurance; the arbitration clause is blank [2]
Tata AIG — Professional Shield; UIN field blank in the filed copyNo — Bodily Injury is excluded outright, and that is the core malpractice peril [1]5 — the own-hosted wording is a generic E&O, the UIN field is literally blank, and the downloads page lists no medical PI documents at all [1]90 days — but only if the insurer cancels or non-renews, and void if cover is replaced [1]A "Retention" set in the schedule — and the Retention also applies to Defence Costs, verbatim [1]Within the limit; the limit available to pay judgments is reduced by legal defence spend [1]Hammer clause [2,1,24], and the doctor may not even incur defence costs without prior written consent [1]Claims-made and reported; the breach must post-date the retroactive date; the extended reporting limit is part of, not additional to, the policy limitNo menu, no ratio publishedNone of the standard medical exclusions appear — because this is not a medical wording at all [1]Natural persons only — an entity named as Policyholder is expressly not an Insured, so a clinic or hospital buying this paper is outside the cover it thinks it bought [1]Written notice of a claim within 30 days as a condition precedent; no defence spend without consent [1]
IFFCO Tokio — Doctors PI; UIN IRDAN106RP0044V01202223Yes — a doctors-specific wording covering doctors, medical practitioners and establishments [14]8 — doctors wording and prospectus both own-hosted; no CIS, and the wording is filed under a /motor/ path [14]90 days, triggered by either side ending the policy — the broadest extended-reporting trigger of any Indian doctors' wording [14]Schedule-only, no formula published; voluntary excess offered on the proposalWithin the limit, but payable whether liability ultimately attaches or not, with prior consent [11,25,15,13,16,5,14,17,2,1,24]Insurer's consent required, with a right to pay the limit and walk away; no hammer clause [2,1,24]Claims-made; the retroactive date runs from inception and survives only on renewal without a breakFree-form on the proposal; no menu publishedCosmesis excluded; burns and trauma reconstruction preserved [11,15,16,14,17,23,13,5]Assistants only if named in the Schedule; nurses automatic; an extension covers staff not professionally qualified to operate the facility, and a cross-liabilities clause applies [11,23][11,23][14]12-month sue-or-abandon; 3-year claims-series cutoff; no annual-limit reinstatement; misdescription voids the policy and forfeits the premium [11,15,13,16,14,17,5][11,15,13,16,14,17][11,15,13,16,14,17]
Future Generali (Generali Central) — broker-sold; no UINUnverifiable — no wording, no prospectus, no CIS and no UIN exists anywhere public [4]0 — nothing at all, and the product is absent from the insurer's own 984-row filed-product list [4]Not published — the only description of the product is a broker pageNot published in any primary documentNot published in any primary documentNot published in any primary documentNot published in any primary document1:1 only, per the broker page that is the sole public description of the product [4,26]Plastic and cosmetic surgeons are not covered, per the same broker page [4]Not published in any primary documentNothing verifiable exists to compare — everything known about this product is broker paper [4]
Go Digit — generic Professional Liability; UIN IRDAN158RP0003V01202122Conditional — Digit files no doctors wording, so medical scope hangs entirely on how the schedule defines professional services [24]10, with an asterisk — wording, prospectus and CIS all public, but for a generic product; for a doctor the effective transparency is far lower [24]Schedule variables — automatic days and paid months are not fixed in the filing, and none of it is available if the policy is cancelled or avoidedDeductible set in the schedule plus a "Participation Percentage" coinsurance on every claim above it — and buying insurance to offset that coinsurance voids the cover [24]Within the limit — the occurrence limit covers compensation and claims expenses together [11,25,15,13,16,5,14,17,2,1,24]Hammer clause [2,1,24], and panel lawyers only — the doctor cannot choose their own counsel and have it funded [24]Retroactive cover conditional on documented evidence of unbroken prior insurance; the continuous-cover forgiveness applies only where Digit was the insurer throughout [24]No ratio menu at all — Each Occurrence and Aggregate limits set purely by the schedule [24]No medical procedure exclusions, because it is not a medical wordingEmployees automatic within the scope of employment; consultants only where they act under the insured's direct control and supervision [2,24]Notice must be given during the policy period; the doctor may not settle even within the deductible; the policy is excess over any other insurance
IndusInd (ex-Reliance) — Doctors PI; UIN IRDAN103RP0023V01200102Yes — a doctors-specific wording, re-issued under IndusInd branding in 2026 [27]7 — the current wording is own-hosted, but there is no prospectus and the CIS is marine-cargo boilerplate [28]90 days [11,15,13,16,14,17]Compulsory excess as stated in the schedule — no formula published in any primary documentWithin the limit, but payable whether liability ultimately attaches or not, with prior consent [11,25,15,13,16,5,14,17,2,1,24]Insurer's consent required, with a right to pay the limit and walk away; no hammer clause [2,1,24]Claims-made with a retroactive date and a notification extension; retroactive continuity on renewal is not addressed in the wording at allFull published menu — 1:1 for AOA ₹1L-50L, 1:2 to ₹25L, 1:3 to ₹16.5L, 1:4 to ₹12.5L [27]Cosmesis excluded with burns, trauma and scar carve-backs preserved — but plastic surgeons are not eligible for the product at all [11,15,16,14,17,23,13,5][27]Assistants only if named in the Schedule; nurses and technicians automatic [11,23][11,23]12-month sue-or-abandon; 3-year claims-series cutoff; no annual-limit reinstatement; a wide "deliberate conscious or intentional disregard" exclusion [11,15,13,16,14,17,5][11,15,13,16,14,17][11,15,13,16,14,17]
SBI General — no doctors PI productNo product exists — confirmed against SBI General's own filed UIN list, not merely unlocated [3]Not scored — it does not offer the product [3]n/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/aListed here only to end the cross-sell confusion: an old SBI General prospectus cross-sells a doctors product that appears on no filed product list [3]
IMA PPS / NPPS — member protection schemes, not insuranceNot insurance — a member-contribution pool outside IRDAI regulation, with no policyholder protections and no recourse to the Insurance Ombudsman [29,19]Not scored — rules vary by state branch and no consolidated national rulebook exists [29,19]No tail at all — leave or lapse and later-filed suits over in-membership incidents lose their defence [18,19,20,21]None stated in any scheme document; the cost-sharing is on the funding side, including Karnataka's uncapped member levy [30,18]Scheme-controlled and capped: Karnataka reimburses defence at roughly ₹10,000 for a District forum, ₹20,000 for the State commission and ₹30,000 for the National commission [18]The scheme runs the defence through panel advocates — in Kerala, replying to a legal notice yourself or through your own lawyer forfeits cover [21]Occurrence during active membership — the opposite trigger to every insurance policy — and protection runs forward only from the date the fee is realised [18,19,20,21][19]Caps, not ratios: NPPS ₹10 lakh per case and ₹20 lakh per year [19]; Gujarat ₹1 crore AOA / ₹1 crore AOY [20]; Karnataka up to ₹1 crore a financial year [30,18]Varies by branch — Gujarat excludes acts beyond one's qualification, medical camps and all activity outside the state [20]The member only — never the hospital, nursing home, clinic or laboratory [20]; IMA life membership is a precondition [19]Managing-committee discretion is final; Gujarat can refuse renewal after 5 litigations [20]; no IRDAI protection and no Ombudsman [29,19]

1. What this comparison is, and what no comparison of Indian doctors' indemnity can be

Every cell above was taken from a primary document — an IRDAI-filed policy wording, a prospectus or a customer information sheet — read in full. Nothing here comes from a broker's product page except where the label says so, and where it does say so, that is because no primary document exists to read [4].

The reason for that discipline is the thing this vertical will not tell you: there is no claim settlement ratio for professional indemnity in India. The phrase does not appear in IRDAI's Annual Report, the Handbook on Indian Insurance Statistics, the GI Council Yearbook or the Insurance Ombudsman's annual report [7,8,9,10], and IRDAI's insurer-wise tables collapse liability into an "Other Segments" bucket shared with crop, credit, engineering and aviation [8,7]. So a doctor cannot rank these products on how often each pays. What a doctor can do is read what each one promises, and check whether the insurer will let them.

That second question turned out to be the sharpest discriminator in the whole audit, which is why the documentation-transparency score is the ranking spine rather than a footnote.

2. The first test: does the published wording cover malpractice at all?

Before excess rates and reporting windows, one question sorts this market: does the document the insurer publishes respond to a patient's bodily injury? For three of the thirteen carriers, the answer on the public paper is no.

Tata AIG's Professional Shield — the wording sitting behind its doctors' marketing page — excludes Bodily Injury outright [1]. Bajaj's filed wording defines "Loss" as financial injury other than that arising out of bodily injury, so read literally it does not respond to a malpractice claim [2]. SBI General has no doctors' product at all, confirmed against its own filed UIN lists rather than merely unlocated [3]. Go Digit sits in a fourth position: its paperwork is complete, but it files no doctors wording, so medical scope depends entirely on how a schedule defines professional services [24].

Every public-sector wording, plus ICICI Lombard, IFFCO Tokio, IndusInd and HDFC ERGO Mediserve, responds to bodily injury on its face [22,11,15,13]. That single line separates a product from a marketing page more reliably than any premium comparison, and it is argued in full at which policies do not actually cover malpractice.

3. Documentation transparency — the ranking spine

Documentation transparency ranking

Our score [11,25,15,13,16,5,14,17,2,1,24,3,4][5,11,13,4], from the weighting in the methodology above: policy wording 4, prospectus 2, customer information sheet 2, UIN published 1, documents served from the insurer''s own domain 1. It measures what a doctor can verify before buying — not how any insurer handles a claim, which no published data anywhere would let us rank [7,8,9,10].

RankCarrierScore /10What a doctor can actually read before buying
1HDFC ERGO (Mediserve)10Wording, prospectus and CIS — all three, current, doctors-specific, on the insurer's own domain. The only product in the market where this is true [5,6]
2Go Digit10*A perfect paper trail for a generic professional liability product. There is no doctors wording, so nothing about medical scope or ratios can be compared before a quote is issued [24]
3IFFCO Tokio8A doctors-specific wording and a prospectus, both own-hosted; no CIS. The wording is filed under a /motor/ path on the insurer's own site [14]
4National Insurance7.5The only public-sector insurer with the full wording live on its own site — and it states two different compulsory-excess rates inside that one document [15]
5IndusInd (ex-Reliance)7A current 2026 doctors wording, own-hosted, with no prospectus and a CIS whose obligations section is pasted from a marine-cargo document [28]
6United India6CIS and prospectus, current and own-hosted; the operative wording is nowhere. The prospectus opens by describing cover for the accidental breakage of plate glass [25]
7Bajaj General6An own-hosted but generic wording whose "Loss" definition excludes bodily injury [2]; the doctors endorsement, rate chart and cosmetic exclusion are all unpublished, and the arbitration clause body is blank [2]
8Tata AIG5An own-hosted wording that is a generic E&O excluding bodily injury, with the UIN field left literally blank and no medical PI documents on the downloads page [1]
9ICICI Lombard4.5Its own domain blocks fetchers even on PDF paths, so the reliable copy of a roughly 20-year-old service-tax-era wording lives on IRDAI's site and the prospectus on a bank distributor's mirror [16]
10New India Assurance3India's largest general insurer publishes no wording, no prospectus, no CIS and no UIN. The wording survives publicly only on an intermediary's website [11,12]
11Oriental Insurance2.5A site migration killed every document path. The filed wording now exists publicly only in the Wayback Machine [13]
12Future Generali (Generali Central)0Nothing. No wording, no prospectus, no CIS, no UIN — and the product is missing from the insurer's own filed-product list after the rebrand [4]
—SBI GeneralNot scoredThere is no product to document [3]
—IMA PPS / NPPSNot scoredScheme rules are partly public and vary by state branch; there is no consolidated national rulebook, and the schemes are not insurance at all [29,19]

Two things in that table are worth sitting with. The first is that the ranking inverts the brand order: the two carriers with the heaviest advertising presence in this vertical are among the least verifiable [16][2], while the newest entrant publishes everything [5,6]. The second is that two public-sector insurers have effectively lost custody of their own filed wordings — New India's exists publicly only on an intermediary's website [11,12] and Oriental's only in a web archive [13].

Transparency is not a proxy for quality of cover, and this page does not treat it as one: New India has the most insured-friendly defence clause in the market [11] and scores 3. But it is the only axis on which a doctor can conduct their own diligence before signing, which makes it the axis that decides whether any of the others can be checked at all. The full ranking is at documentation transparency.

4. What the filed paperwork actually looks like

Document-integrity defects we found in filed paperwork

These are not typographical quibbles. Each is a defect in a document a doctor is expected to rely on when deciding what they are buying, in paperwork the insurer filed and still distributes.

CarrierThe defectWhy it matters
United IndiaThe doctors' PI prospectus opens by describing cover for "the accidental breakage of plate glass" — a copy-paste from another product [25]The prospectus is one of only two public documents for this product; the operative wording is not published at all
IndusInd (ex-Reliance)The professional indemnity CIS instructs the insured to give notice of claim "on the Carriers, Port Authorities or other Bailees" — marine-cargo boilerplate [28]The CIS is the document a retail buyer is handed to explain their obligations, and this one describes the wrong obligations entirely
National InsuranceOne filed PDF states two different compulsory-excess rates: 0.25% in clause 7 and ½% in the specimen schedule [15]A doctor cannot tell from the filed document what they would pay out of pocket on a claim — the figure differs by a factor of two
Bajaj GeneralThe published wording carries an arbitration clause heading whose clause body is blank [2]How a coverage dispute gets resolved is left undefined in the document the insurer publishes
ICICI LombardThe wording still references service tax at 10.2%, roughly two decades after that regime ended, and is still being distributed in 2026 [16]Nothing in the wording has been revisited in that time, including the clauses that decide claims
Tata AIGThe UIN field in the filed public copy is blank, and the downloads page lists no medical PI documents at all [1]Without a UIN a buyer cannot check the product against IRDAI's filed-product record

These matter for a reason beyond embarrassment. A customer information sheet is the document a retail buyer is handed to understand their own obligations; IndusInd's tells a doctor to give notice of claim to port authorities and bailees [28]. A prospectus is what a doctor reads before buying; United India's opens on plate-glass cover [25]. And where a document states two different excess figures inside one PDF [15], the doctor has no way to know which one they will be charged. The full catalogue is at document-integrity defects.

5. The lapse trap: what happens the day after cover ends

These are claims-made policies, so the post-expiry reporting window is what stands between a doctor and a total loss of cover when a complaint arrives after a renewal has slipped. The spread across the market is enormous.

IFFCO Tokio is the outlier in the doctor's favour: its 90-day window opens whether the insurer or the doctor ended the policy, the broadest trigger of any Indian doctors' wording we read [14]. New India, National, Oriental, ICICI Lombard and IndusInd each give 90 days [11,15,13,16,14,17]. Tata AIG gives 90 too, but only where the insurer cancels or non-renews, and voids it if replacement cover is taken [1]. Bajaj gives 30 days on the same insurer-only trigger, and only for incidents already reported during the period [2]. HDFC ERGO Mediserve gives nothing: "No claims should be reported post expiry of Policy" [5], and it also resets the retroactive date if a renewal breaks by a single day [5]. The IMA schemes have no tail at all — leaving or lapsing ends every right, including the defence of suits filed later over incidents that happened while a member [18,19,20,21].

This is not a theoretical risk. Late or missing notification was the single most litigated repudiation ground in the 25 judgments we catalogued [31], and one orthopaedic surgeon lost everything for telling his insurer roughly nine years late [32]. Full comparison at the lapse trap.

6. Compulsory excess, and the policy that contradicts itself

New India and Oriental charge no compulsory excess at all [11,22][13,22] — a deliberate inheritance from the 1991 Market Agreement, which prescribes no deductible for doctors and whose DNA all four public-sector wordings carry [22,11,15,13]. United India charges 0.50% of the limit, minimum ₹5,000 and maximum ₹1,00,000 [23]. National Insurance states 0.25% in clause 7 and ½% in the specimen schedule of the same filed PDF [15].

Every private carrier leaves the figure to the schedule, so it cannot be compared before a quote exists — and at three of them the excess is charged against the legal spend as well as the damages, so it bites in every claim including the ones the doctor wins [16][2][1]. Go Digit goes further, adding a "Participation Percentage" coinsurance on every claim above the deductible and voiding cover if the doctor insures that coinsurance elsewhere [24]. Worked through at compulsory excess compared.

7. Who controls the defence

Three carriers can cap their liability at a settlement the doctor refused, plus costs to that date: Bajaj, Tata AIG and Go Digit [2,1,24]. Tata AIG additionally bars the doctor from incurring defence costs at all without prior written consent [1], and Go Digit restricts the defence to panel lawyers [24]. The public-sector wordings, ICICI Lombard, IFFCO Tokio and IndusInd use the milder model — the insurer has a right but no duty to defend, and consent is required before any admission or settlement.

The extreme case is not an insurance policy at all. The IMA schemes run the defence themselves through panel advocates, reimburse at fixed rates well below commercial fees [18], and in Kerala a member who replies to a legal notice personally or through their own lawyer forfeits cover outright [21]. More at hammer clauses.

8. Cosmetic work, ratios and who else is on the policy

Carriers split on cosmesis in a way that decides whether a reconstructive surgeon is covered at all. New India, National, ICICI Lombard, IFFCO Tokio and IndusInd exclude cosmetic surgery but preserve burns and trauma reconstruction and scar repair; United India, Oriental and HDFC ERGO Mediserve exclude it flat with no carve-back [11,15,16,14,17,23,13,5]. Two carriers will not insure plastic surgeons at all: IndusInd excludes them from eligibility [27] and Generali Central's product does not cover plastic and cosmetic surgeons [4]. See cosmetic and reconstructive carve-backs.

Only two insurers publish an AOA:AOY ratio menu at all — New India, at 1:1 through 1:4 [12], and IndusInd, with the limit bands attached [27]. Go Digit publishes none [24], National labels the same mechanic Any One Occurrence and aggregate instead [15], and every other private carrier hides the ratio in the schedule. That is the subject of AOA:AOY ratios compared.

One structural point runs across almost every wording and catches doctors out. A qualified assistant — a junior or a resident — is indemnified under the principal's policy only if that person is named in the Schedule, at seven of the eleven wordings we read [11,23], while employed nurses and technicians are covered automatically [11,23]. The resident doctor is the one person on the ward who requires a positive act of scheduling. Tata AIG goes further in the other direction: an entity named as policyholder is expressly not an insured, so a clinic buying that paper is outside the cover it thinks it bought [1].

9. The term that is identical everywhere

Every difference above is worth less than the one thing this market agrees on: defence costs are paid from inside the limit of indemnity, never in addition to it, at every Indian product we could verify [11,25,15,13,16,5,14,17,2,1,24]. A ₹1 crore policy is a single ₹1 crore budget for damages and lawyers together.

That reframes the whole purchase. Insurers contested the claim in roughly 22 of the 25 litigated cases we catalogued [31], awards have run to ₹6.08 crore plus interest [33], and the annual aggregate is not reinstated once exhausted at any of the public-sector insurers, ICICI Lombard, IFFCO Tokio or IndusInd [11,15,13,16,14,17]. So the question is not which policy has the biggest headline number. It is how much of that number survives the fight — which is why a no-excess wording that funds the defence whether or not liability attaches [11,22][11] can be worth more in practice than a larger limit on paper.

10. How to use this table

Each column above is argued in full on its own page, with every carrier ranked on that one axis:

For the verdict that weighs these terms against each other into a single ranking, start at the best and worst doctors' indemnity insurance in India. For what any of it costs, see what doctors' indemnity premiums actually are — and note that only one carrier in this entire market publishes a worked premium example of its own [34].

Frequently asked questions

Which doctors' indemnity policy in India is best on the filed wordings?
There is no single winner, because the products that score best on disclosure are not the ones that score best on terms. HDFC ERGO's Mediserve is the only product whose insurer publishes the full document set [5,6] and it is written for current risks [5] — but it accepts no claim once the policy has expired [5]. New India and Oriental charge no compulsory excess at all [11,22][13,22] and New India's defence clause pays whether or not liability ultimately attaches [11], but neither will show you the wording on its own website [11,12][13]. IFFCO Tokio has the most forgiving lapse window of any wording we read [14].
Which doctors' indemnity policies do not cover malpractice?
On the published paper, three. Tata AIG's Professional Shield — the product behind its doctors marketing page — excludes Bodily Injury outright [1]. Bajaj's published wording defines "Loss" as financial injury other than that arising out of bodily injury, so read literally it does not respond to a malpractice claim at all [2]. SBI General has no doctors' product on any of its filed UIN lists [3]. In the first two cases doctor cover must ride on endorsements that are not published anywhere, which means buying a promise you cannot read. The full argument is on our page on the policies that do not cover malpractice.
How long after my policy expires can I still report a claim?
It depends entirely on the carrier, and the range is the widest of any term in this comparison. IFFCO Tokio gives 90 days and is the only wording where the window opens whichever side ended the policy [14]. New India, National, Oriental, ICICI Lombard and IndusInd give 90 days [11,15,13,16,14,17]. Tata AIG gives 90 days but only if the insurer cancels or non-renews [1]. Bajaj gives 30 days on the same insurer-only trigger, and only for incidents already reported [2]. HDFC ERGO Mediserve gives none at all [5]. The IMA schemes have no tail whatsoever [18,19,20,21]. See the lapse trap compared.
Which insurers charge no compulsory excess on a doctors' indemnity claim?
New India Assurance [11,22] and Oriental Insurance [13,22] — both by design, because the 1991 Market Agreement their wordings descend from prescribes no deductible for doctors [22,11,15,13]. United India charges 0.50% of the limit, minimum ₹5,000 and maximum ₹1,00,000 [23]. National Insurance states 0.25% in one clause and ½% in the specimen schedule of the same filed document [15]. Every private carrier leaves the number to the schedule, and at ICICI Lombard, Bajaj and Tata AIG the excess is charged against defence costs as well as damages [16][2][1]. Full workings on compulsory excess compared.
What is a hammer clause and which Indian insurers use one?
A hammer clause lets the insurer cap what it will pay at the value of a settlement offer the doctor refused, plus costs incurred to that date — so choosing to fight on becomes the doctor's own financial risk. Three carriers put one in their published wordings: Bajaj, Tata AIG and Go Digit [2,1,24]. Go Digit compounds it with panel lawyers only [24] and an uninsurable coinsurance on every claim [24]; Tata AIG bars the doctor from even incurring defence costs without prior written consent [1]. The public-sector wordings, ICICI Lombard, IFFCO Tokio and IndusInd carry none. More on hammer clauses.
Which Indian insurer is most transparent about its doctors' indemnity policy?
HDFC ERGO, on a considerable margin — Mediserve is the only doctors-specific product whose insurer publishes the wording, the prospectus and the customer information sheet on its own website [5,6]. The bottom of the ranking is the surprise: New India, the largest general insurer in India, publishes none of the four [11,12]; Oriental's filed wording survives only in the Wayback Machine [13]; ICICI Lombard's own site blocks fetchers, so the reliable copy of its wording lives on IRDAI's [16]; and Future Generali publishes nothing at all [4]. The complete ranking with scores is at documentation transparency.
Are defence costs paid on top of the sum insured?
No. At every Indian doctors' indemnity product we could verify, defence costs come out of the limit of indemnity rather than in addition to it [11,25,15,13,16,5,14,17,2,1,24]. A ₹1 crore policy is a single ₹1 crore budget covering damages and lawyers together. That is the one term with no variation across the whole market, which is why the differentiators that matter are narrower ones: whether the excess also bites the legal spend [16], whether the insurer will fund the fight before coverage is settled [11], and whether a hammer clause can cap it [2,1,24].
Which insurers publish their AOA:AOY ratio menu, and which will not insure plastic surgeons?
Only two publish a full menu. New India offers 1:1 through 1:4 [12] and IndusInd publishes its menu with the limit bands attached [27]. Every other private carrier leaves the ratio to the schedule, Go Digit publishes no menu at all [24], and Future Generali's broker page offers 1:1 only [4,26]. On eligibility: IndusInd excludes plastic surgeons from the product entirely [27], and Generali Central's product does not cover plastic and cosmetic surgeons either [4]. See AOA:AOY ratios compared and cosmetic carve-backs.
Is there a claim settlement ratio for doctors' indemnity in India?
No, and anyone quoting one is inventing it. No Indian regulator publication reports professional-indemnity-specific claim settlement data — not IRDAI's Annual Report, not the statistics Handbook, not the GI Council Yearbook, not the Ombudsman's annual report [7,8,9,10] — and IRDAI's insurer-wise tables fold liability into an "Other Segments" bucket shared with crop, credit, engineering and aviation [8,7]. That absence is why this comparison is built from filed wordings. It is the only evidence that exists.

Sources

Every figure on this page is footnoted to one of the primary documents below. Reliability tiers: A = regulator, court or filed document; B = reputable publisher or carrier official page; C = user-generated (reported by users).

  1. 1.Tata AIG General Insurance — Professional Shield — policy wording (generic professionals' E&O). https://www.tataaig.com/s3/professional_shield_417d979962.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-08
  2. 2.Bajaj General Insurance (ex Bajaj Allianz) — Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy — policy wording (generic, retail UIN). https://www.bajajgeneralinsurance.com/download-documents/commercial-insurance/professional-indemnity-insurance-policy/Professional-Indemnity.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-08
  3. 3.SBI General Insurance — SBI General filed UIN product list. https://content.sbigeneral.in/uploads/Product_list_for_website_2_New_896efc8d9c.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-08-17
  4. 4.Generali Central Insurance (ex Future Generali) — Complete filed-product list for website (984 rows). https://www.generalicentralinsurance.com/footer-pdf/product-list-for-website.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-08
  5. 5.HDFC ERGO General Insurance — Mediserve Professional Indemnity — policy wording. https://customer-portal-assets.hdfcergo.com/documents/MediserveProfessionalIndemnity-PolicyWordings-526654013238.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-08
  6. 6.HDFC ERGO General Insurance — Mediserve Professional Indemnity — Customer Information Sheet. https://customer-portal-assets.hdfcergo.com/documents/MediserveProfessionalIndemnity-CIS-840893480119.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-08
  7. 7.IRDAI — IRDAI Annual Report 2024-25. https://irdai.gov.in/annual-reportsTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Published 2025-12-01 · Accessed 2026-07-17
  8. 8.IRDAI — Handbook on Indian Insurance Statistics 2024-25. https://irdai.gov.in/handbook-of-indian-insuranceTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Published 2026-02-01 · Accessed 2026-07-17
  9. 9.General Insurance Council — GI Council Yearbook 2023-24. https://www.gicouncil.in/yearbook/2023-24/Tier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-17
  10. 10.Council for Insurance Ombudsmen — Insurance Ombudsman Annual Report 2023-24. https://cioins.co.in/annualreports/AnnualReport2023-2024.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Published 2024-09-01 · Accessed 2026-07-17
  11. 11.New India Assurance Co. — Professional Indemnity Policy for Doctors and Medical Practitioners — policy wording. https://www.iosweb.net/m-documents/DRINDEMCLAUSE.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-08
  12. 12.New India Assurance Co. — Professional Indemnity Insurance — product page. https://www.newindia.co.in/professional-indemnity-insuranceTier B · Reputable publisher / carrier official · Accessed 2026-07-08
  13. 13.The Oriental Insurance Co. — Professional Indemnity Policy for Doctors & Medical Practitioners — policy wording (Wayback copy). https://web.archive.org/web/20230402045912id_/https://orientalinsurance.org.in/documents/10182/5106103/Terms+%26+conds+of++PROFESSIONAL+INDEMNITY+POLICY+FOR+DOCTORS+%26+MEDICAL+PRACTITIONERS.pdf/065f44d4-58e6-6bca-a65e-a414a2197132Tier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-08
  14. 14.IFFCO Tokio General Insurance — Professional Indemnity Policy — wording for Doctors, Medical Practitioners and Medical Establishments. https://www.iffcotokio.co.in/content/dam/iffcotokio/policy-wordings/motor/professional-indemnity-policy-wording-doctors.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-08
  15. 15.National Insurance Co. (NICL) — Professional Indemnity (for Doctors & Medical Practitioners) — full wording + specimen schedule. https://nationalinsurance.nic.co.in/sites/default/files/2026-04/Prof.Indmn%20Doctor%20Medical%20estb%20prospectus.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-08
  16. 16.ICICI Lombard (hosted by IRDAI) — Professional Indemnity Policy (For Doctors & Medical Practitioners) — policy wording. https://irdai.gov.in/documents/37343/993134/6_Policy+Wordings+Doctors+and+Medical+Practitioners_Misc+21_GEN073.pdf/dcdecdb3-f154-806d-88d7-1ebffee7eb61?version=1.1&t=1668243606849&download=trueTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-08
  17. 17.IndusInd General Insurance (ex Reliance General) — IndusInd Professional Indemnity Policy for Doctors and Medical Practitioners — policy wording. https://www.indusindinsurance.com/Downloads/professional-indemnity-policy-for-doctors-and-medical-practictioners.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-08
  18. 18.IMA Karnataka PPS (KPPS) — Registered Constitution of IMA-KPPS. https://www.imakppsbengaluru.org/PDF/Constitution-Of-IMA-KPPS.pdfTier B · Reputable publisher / carrier official · Accessed 2026-07-08
  19. 19.Indian Medical Association (national) — IMA National Professional Protection Scheme (NPPS) — brochure. https://www.ima-india.org/branch/cms/images/8746_NPPS.pdfTier B · Reputable publisher / carrier official · Accessed 2026-07-08
  20. 20.IMA Gujarat State Branch — Professional Protection Scheme — Gujarat State Branch rules. https://imarajkot.org/uploads/file/professional-protection-scheme-gujarat-state-branch.pdfTier B · Reputable publisher / carrier official · Accessed 2026-07-08
  21. 21.IMA Kerala State Branch — IMA Kerala Professional Protection Scheme — scheme page and rules. https://www.imakerala.com/schemeTier B · Reputable publisher / carrier official · Accessed 2026-07-08
  22. 22.All-India general insurers (Oriental-branded copy) — Market Agreement on Rating of Professional Indemnity Insurances (1991). https://telearogya.com/assets/PROFESSIONAL_INDEMNITY-MARKET_AGREEMENT.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Published 1991-12-01 · Accessed 2026-07-08
  23. 23.United India Insurance Co. — Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy — Customer Information Sheet. https://uiic.co.in/web/sites/default/files/Policy-Document/Professional%20Indemnity%20Insurance%20Policy%20CIS.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Published 2024-10-01 · Accessed 2026-07-08
  24. 24.Go Digit General Insurance — Digit Professional Liability Policy — retail policy wording. https://www.godigit.com/content/dam/godigit/directportal/en/downloads/others/policy-wordings-digit-professional-liability-policy.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-08
  25. 25.United India Insurance Co. — Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy for Doctors — prospectus. https://uiic.co.in/web/sites/default/files/Policy-Document/Professional%20Indemnity%20Insurance%20Policy-%20for%20Doctors.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-08
  26. 26.SecureNow (broker) — How much does a doctor's professional indemnity insurance cost?. https://securenow.in/insuropedia/how-much-does-a-doctors-professional-indemnity-insurance-cost/Tier B · Reputable publisher / carrier official · Published 2024-01-01 · Accessed 2026-07-17
  27. 27.IndusInd General Insurance — Professional Indemnity Insurance — product page. https://www.indusindinsurance.com/smes-insurance/professional-indemnity-insuranceTier B · Reputable publisher / carrier official · Accessed 2026-07-08
  28. 28.IndusInd General Insurance — IndusInd Professional Indemnity Insurance — Customer Information Sheet (generic umbrella PI). https://www.indusindinsurance.com/Downloads/indusind-professional-indemnity-insurance-policy.pdfTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-08
  29. 29.Indian Journal of Ophthalmology (via PMC) — IJO editorial on medico-legal protection and the IMA/AIOS Professional Protection Scheme (Jan 2020). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6951135/Tier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Published 2020-01-01 · Accessed 2026-07-17
  30. 30.IMA Karnataka — IMA-KPPS fees and benefits summary. https://imakarnataka.in/PDF/IMAKPPS.pdfTier B · Reputable publisher / carrier official · Accessed 2026-07-08
  31. 31.IndianKanoon (catalog compiled by Best Worst Insurance) — Doctors' PI judgments sweep — 25-case catalog of insurer conduct (consumer fora, High Courts, Supreme Court). https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=%22professional%20indemnity%22%20doctorTier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-17
  32. 32.NCDRC (via IndianKanoon) — Dr. Tarunjit Dutta Roy v. New India Assurance (NCDRC, 2013). https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194587303/Tier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Accessed 2026-07-17
  33. 33.Supreme Court of India (via IndianKanoon) — Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha (SC, 2013) — AMRI / Anuradha Saha. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35346928/Tier A · Regulator / court / filed document · Published 2013-10-24 · Accessed 2026-07-17
  34. 34.Bajaj Finserv (Bajaj General distributor) — Bajaj doctors' professional indemnity — 1-page brochure. https://cms-assets.bajajfinserv.in/is/content/bajajfinance/bajaj-allianz-policy-broucherpdf?scl=1&fmt=pdfTier B · Reputable publisher / carrier official · Accessed 2026-07-08