The insurance industry stands at a critical inflection point. As digital transformation accelerates and fraud schemes become increasingly sophisticated, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) has unveiled a transformative regulatory response: the Insurance Fraud Monitoring Framework Guidelines, 2025. Effective from April 1, 2026, these guidelines represent far more than a regulatory update — they constitute a fundamental reimagining of how India's insurance sector confronts fraud, moving from reactive detection to proactive prevention, from siloed efforts to collaborative intelligence networks.
The Urgency: Why New Guidelines Were Needed Now
To understand the necessity of IRDAI's 2025 guidelines, one must first acknowledge the mounting crisis facing the Indian insurance industry. The numbers tell a sobering story.
Across the broader insurance sector, industry estimates suggest that 15% of health insurance claims contain some element of fraud.[1]
India's insurance sector is critical to the nation's financial inclusion and economic resilience. The insurance penetration ratio remains below 3% of gross domestic product (GDP), substantially lower than developed economies. Fraud erodes this already-fragile market. The 2025 framework represents a regulatory recognition that fraud prevention is not merely a loss mitigation function but a strategic prerequisite for industry growth and public trust.
From Foundation to Sophistication: Evolution of India's Insurance Fraud Management
To fully appreciate the transformative power of the 2025 guidelines, it is valuable to understand the regulatory evolution. The previous regulatory framework, issued in January 2013, established the foundational principles for fraud management across Indian insurers.
The 2013 framework established that insurers must maintain fraud monitoring cells, conduct investigations, and report cases to law enforcement. It recognized distinct fraud categories and required insurers to track fraud throughout its lifecycle. These foundational elements enabled creating baseline expectations across the industry and beginning to build a culture of fraud awareness.
The 2025 Framework: Quantum Leap in Depth and Sophistication
The 2025 guidelines, however, represent a categorical advancement in regulatory sophistication — a transformation from foundational principles to a comprehensive, modern fraud governance architecture designed for a digitized economy. The differences are profound and multi-dimensional:
1. Structural Governance: From Scattered Functions to Board-Level Accountability
Where the 2013 framework provided references to "fraud monitoring cells," the 2025 framework mandates a rigorous, formalized governance structure with explicit lines of accountability. Every insurer must now establish a fraud monitoring committee (FMC) headed by a key managerial person (KMP), with representation from underwriting, claims, legal, and other functions. The FMC must be independent from internal audit, ensuring fraud monitoring maintains operational autonomy rather than being absorbed into routine compliance checking.
This is not merely an organizational reshuffling — it represents a fundamental elevation of fraud prevention from an operational function to a strategic enterprise-wide responsibility. The FMC reports quarterly to the risk management committee and all internal fraud is escalated to the audit committee. Boards must now explicitly approve comprehensive anti-fraud policies, reviewed annually at a minimum. This architecture ensures that fraud patterns are recognized at the enterprise level, not fragmented across departments, and that board-level executives bear direct accountability for fraud management effectiveness.
2. From Reactive Detection to Predictive Prevention: The Red Flag Indicator Revolution
The 2013 framework implied fraud detection — insurers should investigate suspicious claims. The 2025 framework introduces something fundamentally different: mandatory Red Flag Indicators (RFIs) developed specifically for each insurer's business profile, products, and distribution channels.
Rather than waiting for claims to arrive and then investigating them, the 2025 framework requires insurers to build predictive architectures that identify potential fraud before it occurs. In health insurance, RFIs might include sudden clusters of claims from the same hospital for high-cost procedures; treatment patterns inconsistent with diagnosed conditions; or multiple claims involving the same healthcare provider and claimant within unusual timeframes. In motor insurance, RFIs include staged accident patterns, unusually rapid claim submissions after policy issuance, or claims involving the same repair shops and claimants across different insurers.
Critically, the 2025 framework mandates that RFIs must be continuously evolved and refined based on past experiences, emerging trends, and industry intelligence. Fraud prevention becomes a dynamic, learning system rather than a static set of rules. This represents an evolutionary leap from the static approach of 2013 to a sophisticated, adaptive framework that recognizes fraud as a constantly evolving threat requiring continuous institutional learning.
3. Enterprise-Wide Integration: From Siloed Monitoring to Unified Risk Architecture
The 2013 framework often resulted in fraud monitoring existing as a scattered function — perhaps the claims department investigating suspicious claims, the underwriting department separately checking for misrepresentation, or the compliance function handling regulatory issues, with minimal coordination between them.
The 2025 framework's governance architecture explicitly eliminates these silos. The mandated FMC brings together representatives from all functions, creating a single enterprise vantage point from which fraud patterns can be recognized and addressed. A fraudulent claim pattern that might be invisible to individual departments becomes obvious at the enterprise level.
4. Distribution Channel Responsibility: From Weak Oversight to Explicit Accountability
The 2013 framework provided limited guidance for intermediaries and distribution partners, essentially leaving them to self-regulate. The 2025 framework transforms this dynamic fundamentally.
Non-individual intermediaries and insurance intermediaries must now establish their own fraud risk management frameworks, commensurate with their business size and risk profile. Their boards and senior management are explicitly responsible for:
- Implementing internal policies, procedures, and controls to deter, prevent, detect, report, and remedy fraud
- Complying with their primary regulator’s framework, supplemented by insurance-specific controls
- Implementing fraud education and awareness programs for employees
- Establishing investigation and internal reporting structures
- Maintaining due diligence procedures for appointing employees and salespersons
- Implementing whistle-blower protection policies
- Immediately reporting suspected fraud impacting insurers with full cooperation.
For other distribution channels not falling under these categories, the requirement is equally explicit: They must comply with the insurer’s anti-fraud policies and procedures and immediately report any suspected fraud.
This transformation is particularly significant given that many fraud schemes originate from within distribution channels themselves. By elevating distribution channel accountability from minimal guidance to explicit policy and procedural requirements, the 2025 framework addresses one of the most critical gaps in the 2013 approach.
5. Cyber Fraud Recognition: From Analog-Age Framework to Digital-Age Sophistication
Perhaps most strikingly, the 2013 framework was written for an analog insurance industry. Cyber fraud — including business email compromise, synthetic identities, deepfakes, Application Programming Interfaces (API) exploitations, and other digital-age threats — were not contemplated.
The 2025 framework explicitly recognizes and addresses cyber or new age fraud as a distinct category. Insurers must now:
- Establish enterprise-wide cybersecurity infrastructure to prevent cyber fraud and threats.
- Continuously monitor and strengthen systems for fraud risk management, including incident databases, customer verification, and access controls.
- Deploy teams with relevant technological expertise to manage cyber fraud risks across business lines.
Given that cybersecurity incidents in India have grown from 10.29 lakh in 2022 to 22.68 lakh in 2024 — a growth rate that itself underscores the urgency — this explicit recognition represents a critical framework advancement. The 2025 guidelines acknowledge that modern fraud prevention cannot be achieved through traditional investigation and audit techniques alone; it requires sophisticated technical infrastructure and specialized digital expertise.
6. Industry-Wide Intelligence Networks: From Isolated Company Efforts to Ecosystem Coordination
Perhaps the most transformative element distinguishing the 2025 framework from 2013 is the mandatory participation in the Insurance Information Bureau (IIB) Fraud Monitoring Technology Framework, which creates an industry-wide caution repository.
The 2013 framework envisioned fraud management as primarily an individual insurer's responsibility. When a fraudster defrauded one insurer, there was no systematic way to alert others in the industry. This fragmentation enabled sophisticated fraud rings to exploit the gaps — targeting multiple insurers simultaneously, with each insurer operating in isolation.
The 2025 framework transforms this paradigm fundamentally. Under the new framework, all insurers must share data concerning:
- Distribution channels, hospitals, and vendors that have been blacklisted
- Fraud perpetrators with conviction records or documented fraud attempts
- Details of suspected fraudulent activities for threat intelligence sharing
The IIB maintains this caution repository and facilitates timely threat intelligence sharing on attempted, suspected, and reported fraudulent activities. A unique identifier system allows identification of policyholders across insurers, preventing fraud rings from exploiting the isolation of individual insurers.
To illustrate the transformative power of this approach: in the case of the 80,000 fake motor insurance policies issued by fraudulent agents across 43 states, a unified IIB repository would have enabled any insurer receiving claims on those fraudulent policies to instantly identify the pattern and alert others. The fraud would have been stopped far earlier, protecting thousands of customers from the deception they suffered.
This represents evolution from a company-centric to an ecosystem-centric fraud prevention model — a fundamental philosophical shift in how regulatory frameworks approach fraud management.
7. Comprehensive Classification and Multi-Dimensional Framework
The 2013 framework established basic fraud categories. The 2025 framework establishes a comprehensive, multi-dimensional classification system covering five distinct fraud categories, each requiring tailored prevention and detection strategies:
Internal Fraud: Fraud involving internal staff, including employees and senior management — premium skimming by agents, unauthorized underwriting decisions, claims manipulation by processors, or data theft by information technology (IT) staff.
Distribution Channel Fraud: Fraud involving intermediaries, agents, brokers, and other distribution partners — forged applications, churning of policies for commission generation, premium misappropriation, and the issuance of fake policies.
Policyholder Fraud and Claims Fraud: Fraud involving any person in obtaining coverage or claiming payment — misrepresentation during application, exaggerated or inflated claims, staging of incidents, and collusion between claimants and service providers.
External Fraud: Fraud involving external parties, service providers, and vendors — fraudulent medical providers billing for unnecessary treatments, repair shops collaborating on staged incidents, and third-party vendors offering inflated invoices.
Affinity Fraud or Complex Fraud: Fraud involving collusion among perpetrators across the above categories — reflecting the modern reality of organized fraud rings.
The 2025 framework mandates that insurers establish systems to address fraud in all five categories with equal rigor. This comprehensive approach recognizes that effective fraud prevention cannot focus solely on claims fraud while ignoring internal corruption or distribution channel abuse.
8. Mandatory Board-Level Scrutiny and Post-Incident Learning
The 2025 framework requires that insurers’ boards of directors approve comprehensive anti-fraud policies including a particularly innovative element: post-incident review procedures to identify "missed" fraud detection opportunities.
This requirement transforms fraud investigations from liability closure to organizational learning. Rather than simply closing fraud cases, insurers must systematically ask: Why did our controls not catch this earlier? What gaps exist in our detection architecture? How can we prevent similar fraud in the future? This built-in mechanism for continuous improvement represents a sophistication absent from the 2013 framework.
9. Formalized Reporting and Escalation Protocols
Where the 2013 framework required reporting, the 2025 framework establishes detailed, structured reporting mechanisms including:
- Annual Fraud Monitoring Reports (FMR)-1 within 30 days of financial year-end, containing business segment-wise breakdown of fraud cases, financial impact, age-wise analysis of unresolved cases, cases reported to law enforcement agencies, and separate reporting on cyber/new age fraud
- Quarterly reporting to the risk management committee
- Immediate escalation of internal fraud to the audit committee
- Prompt escalation to IRDAI of fraud committed by IRDAI-registered distribution channels
These formalized protocols ensure that fraud data flows to appropriate governance levels systematically, rather than remaining compartmentalized.
Conclusion
The IRDAI's Insurance Fraud Monitoring Framework Guidelines, 2025, represent a watershed moment for India's insurance industry. Moving from a compliance-based, siloed approach to a sophisticated, governance-intensive, intelligence-driven framework acknowledges a fundamental reality: Fraud is not an operational concern to be managed in isolation but a strategic risk requiring board-level oversight, cross-organizational coordination, and continuous institutional learning.
Yet the framework’s true value will be determined not by the guidelines themselves but by how rigorously and thoughtfully insurers implement them. The organizations that treat the 2025 framework as a checkbox exercise will gain regulatory compliance but miss the fundamental opportunity it represents. Those that treat it as a catalyst for institutional transformation — redesigning their governance, rebuilding their capabilities, and reorienting their culture toward fraud prevention — will emerge with dramatically strengthened competitive positions, lower claims losses, higher policyholder trust, and greater resilience in an increasingly complex fraud landscape.
How Ankura Can Help
For organizations navigating the transition to the 2025 framework, the complexity is substantial. Implementation requires not merely policy revision but fundamental organizational change: establishing new governance structures, implementing advanced analytics platforms, retraining personnel, redesigning distribution channel management, and building capabilities that most insurers currently lack.
Ankura's Forensics and Investigations practice brings specialized expertise directly addressing the 2025 framework’s requirements:
- Fraud Risk Assessment and Red Flag Indicator Development
- Governance Framework Design and Implementation
- Distribution Channel Fraud Prevention
- Cyber and New Age Fraud Investigation
- Forensic Accounting and Complex Investigation Execution
- Compliance Documentation and Regulatory Reporting
- Industry Intelligence and Caution Repository Integration
The transition to the 2025 framework represents an unprecedented opportunity for insurers to fundamentally strengthen their fraud management capabilities. Yet the implementation challenge is equally unprecedented. The difference between framework compliance and effective fraud prevention lies in the quality of implementation — an area where Ankura’s deep forensic expertise and industry knowledge prove invaluable.
Sources
