Bank Tricks 90-Year-Old Into Buying Insurance Policy That Will Mature In 2124, Deducts Rs 4 Lakh

Blindly trusting a bank employee or an insurance agent can sometimes come at a heavy cost. A recent incident involving a 90-year-old customer raised serious questions about alleged mis-selling, ethical conduct, and the protection of senior citizens in financial services, after a life insurance policy with a maturity year of 2124 was reportedly sold in his name. Following outrage on social media, the bank has now assured the family that the money will be returned.

Venkatachalam V Iyer, 90, a long-time customer of Canara Bank’s Nagpur branch, was allegedly persuaded by the branch manager to purchase a life insurance policy with an annual premium of Rs 2 lakh. The policy was finalised last February, and the first premium was debited directly from

his savings account. The matter came to light when he later received an alert about the next premium payment and informed his family, who then began examining the documents.

According to Saketh R, who identified Iyer as his wife’s grandfather and shared the case publicly on social media, the elderly man had been banking with the same branch for decades and trusted the manager deeply. He alleged that this trust was misused and that Iyer, due to his age and limited financial awareness, agreed to the policy without fully understanding what he was signing up for.

The family claims the manager described the policy as “very important” and “urgent”, creating pressure to sign. Over time, Rs 2 lakh was deducted annually from Iyer’s account, taking the total premium paid to Rs 4 lakh, a substantial portion of his life savings.

The most shocking detail, according to the family, was that the policy was set to mature in 2124, nearly a century later, effectively offering benefits the elderly man would never live to see. The structure of the policy has also raised questions. Since issuing insurance directly in the name of a 90-year-old would not typically be possible, the manager had allegedly earlier advised Iyer to open a joint account with his daughter. The policy was then issued with the daughter listed as the “life assured”, while the premiums continued to be paid from Iyer’s account.

Saketh further alleged that documents were filled out by bank staff and signatures obtained from Iyer despite his frail condition, claiming he was “too old to even write”. He suggested the arrangement may have been structured to bypass age restrictions, possibly to meet sales targets, with little regard for the elderly customer’s financial well-being.

The case triggered strong reactions online, with many users pointing out that the maximum entry age for such insurance plans is typically around 80. Several called it a clear instance of mis-selling and advised the family to escalate the matter to regulators, including the RBI and IRDAI, if not resolved.

After the post went viral, senior bank officials, including the regional head and branch manager, visited Iyer and assured the family that the issue would be resolved promptly and the money refunded within a week.

In its public response on social media, Canara Bank apologised for the inconvenience and said the matter would be forwarded to the concerned team, while also requesting that personal details not be shared on public platforms. However, the response did not directly address the allegations of mis-selling or explain how an age-inappropriate policy was approved, leaving larger concerns about oversight, accountability, and safeguards for senior citizens unanswered.