Why Agent Licensing Exam Candidates Are Repeatedly Disciplined
Since the Nepal Insurance Authority began taking action against fake or proxy candidates in agent licensing exams, more than one hundred candidates have been disciplined. Most have been suspended for three months, involving candidates from 14 life insurers.
Kathmandu. Since the Nepal Insurance Authority's intermediary branch began taking action against fake or proxy candidates participating in agent licensing exams, more than one hundred candidates have been disciplined.
Under Section (8), Subsection (5) of the Insurance Intermediary (Agent) Exam Operation Directive 2079, the Authority has been imposing three-month suspensions on candidates who engage in activities contrary to exam decorum.
Since Poush 9, 2082, the Authority has been monitoring candidates connected to the exam system through remote surveillance, i.e., the IRMIS system. During monitoring, it has repeatedly (in most cases five times) monitored and taken action against fake candidates. According to the Authority, during on-site and off-site monitoring, candidates from all licensed life insurance companies—14 life insurers and 2 micro-life insurers—have been disciplined.
In its press releases, the Authority has stated the reason for action against candidates as: ‘After finding a person different from the one in the photo entered in the IRMIS system participating in the exam and taking the test, they were expelled and action was taken.’
While candidates from 14 life insurers have been disciplined, candidates from two micro-life insurers among privately operated life insurers have not been disciplined. Moreover, not a single candidate participating in exams from the government-owned National Life Insurance Company has faced disciplinary action from the Authority.
Has National Life Insurance Company completely neutralized proxy candidates in exams, or has the Authority failed to monitor effectively? Candidates participating from Met Life (American Life Insurance), considered extremely vigilant regarding compliance with legal and regulatory provisions, have also faced action from the Authority.
According to Sabita Thapa, head of the Authority's intermediary branch, the participation of proxy candidates is the main reason for disciplinary action in most cases. In addition, incidents of exam discipline violations are also recorded when another person assists a candidate in the exam, due to the presence of other people nearby, and due to noise.
Most insurers have not even arranged adequate infrastructure in their offices for exams. There is a problem of not having separate rooms and equipment for exams. The Insurance Agent Exam Directive stipulates that candidates themselves must arrange the necessary equipment and reliable internet for the exam. However, most candidates cannot manage laptops or desktop computers and reliable internet personally. Therefore, insurers have been bringing them to their own offices to participate in exams.