September 23, 2010 7:29 pm
I would like to know the reason why a term insurance without any riders should be considered ? Is there a situation where someone would like to take it ?
also dependes upon the nature of job you are into..ACCIDENTAL DEATH RIDER would be advicable for an individual who is into sales or marketing, always on the road and sometimes at odd hours too..For him, ADB rider would be advicable..And so forth for PERMANENT DISABILITY RIDER too..Someone who is LESS LIKELY to indulge in such activities in his day-to-day business should look for PURE TERM without any rider..And i am not at all in favor of CRITICAL ILLNESS RIDER..Instead, everyone should take up a meaningful and worthy MEDICLAIM..
Term with wide rider choices would be beneficial. For e.g apart from death, permanent physical disability is a very serious factor and I treat it almost equal to death. But if the Term doesn’t cover it, it is useless. So, I prefer with rider and it’s left to choice.
Do not mix riders with your insurance policy. Look at terms & conditions. They’re very confusing. Just to give an example, Critical Illness Rider covers Heart-attack & cancer. But not every type of these. They have “defined” the meaning of heart-attack & cancer. If you’re out of those meanings, you’re out of claim also.
It’s better to take separate health insurance policy, which covers all diseases without any definations.
Hope it will your.
I would definitely consider a term w/o a rider as i would get higher death benefit in less premium. Rider wud lower the death benefit and term insurance is generally taken as cover against death only. So in any case if u r going to die and u r going to get death benefit, why pay more for getting an extra cover. It doesnt make any sense. I am not sure whether you would get the answer you require, but i m making the point that term insurance w/o cover makes more sense. I dont think we have any product where we get the insurance cover and rider in same premium.
hm.. but should’nt your premium be decided on your Insurance requirement , rather than insurance cover getting decided based on your premium . In your example you gave, why to reduce the cover at all ? What if the requirement was 50 lacs only , and one requires riders as well .. whatever premiums comes it should be based , obviously it should be within limits.
I hope you got my point ?
Manish, In my view it depends on the amount I m looking myself to get insured. Suppose I need to get myself insured for Rs. 50 Lacs, I need to pay premium of approx Rs.10000 and if I take riders of Critical Illness and Accidental Death (Both of Rs.10,00,000 each)- I need to pay approx Rs. 3000 extra which again translates into getting an extra amount at the extra cost which is a minimum difference. The only thing you can do is club this both so that your premium would reduce a bit. Take 30 lacs term insurance and 10 lacs each rider, where your total cost comes approx 9500. Concluding it, I would say critical illness rider is one that you can add on.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Please subscribe me to your Email Newsletters
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Download Our FREE Ebook!
Available only for first 100 people today
New here? Create an account