Life insurance policy
"From the details you have given it looks like you have ""Unit Linked"" insurance policy. In such policies a part of the premium goes towards the ""Insurance"", the balance is invested into ""Mutual Funds / stock Market"". It is generally not advisable to have ""Unit Linked"" policy compared to pure ""Term"" policy. Generally the amount of fees charged for ""Unit Linked"" policy is high and hence the returns to the end user are low. i.e. if you buy a ""Term"" insurance for the same sum insured and invest on your own the balance in any ""Mutual Fund"" you will end up making more that what you are getting now. Typically these policies have 3 years lock-in period. As you have purchased this in 2008, you can cancel the policy without any penalties. This will save you future premium and you can buy a term insurance and invest the difference yourself. Note the unit linked policy is useful for people who do not invest on their own and this is a good way to be forced into saving than nothing else." First off, I would question why do you need a LI policy?  While you may be single are you supporting anyone?  If not, and you have some money saved to cover a funeral; or, your next of kin would be able to pay for final expenses then you probably don't have a need.   In, general, LI is a bad investment vehicle.  I do not know hardly anything about the Indian personal finance picture, but here in the US, agents tout LI as a wonderful investment.  This can be translated as they make large commissions on such products. Here in the US one is far better off buying a term product, and investing money elsewhere.  I image it is similar in India. Next time if you want to help a friend, listen to his sales presentation, give some feedback, and hand him some cash.  It is a lot cheaper in the long run. I would like to add to the answer provided by Dheer. I think under some ULIPs you need not pay premium after 3 years and you can take the money back after 5 years (something like that, read your policy statement of course). Since the money is invested in Stock markets and since generally people say the longer money stays in stocks, the better; you can keep the money with them without taking it back and without paying any further premium. That way, whatever you paid will be invested and you can get it back later when you feel you will make a profit.
"I have an answer and a few comments. Back to the basics:  Insurance is purchased to provide protection in case of a loss. It sounds as though you are doing well, from a financial perspective. If you have $0 of financial obligations (loans, mortgages, credit cards, etc.) and you are comfortable with the amount that would be passed on to your heirs, then you DO NOT NEED LIFE INSURANCE. Life insurance is PROTECTION for your heirs so that they can pay off debts and pay for necessities, if you are the ""bread-winner"" and your assets won't be enough. That's all. Life insurance should never be viewed as an investment vehicle. Some policies allow you to invest in funds of your choosing, but the fees charged by the insurance company are usually high. Higher than you might find elsewhere. To answer your other question: I think NY Life is a great life insurance company. They are a mutual company, which is better in my opinion than a stock company because they are okay with holding extra capital. This means they are more likely to have the money to pay all of their claims in a specific period, which shows in their ratings: http://www.newyorklife.com/about/what-rating-agencies-say Whereas public companies will yield a lower return to their stock holders if they are just sitting on additional capital and not paying it back to their stock holders." "The problem above is actually a pretty good list of the concerns around life insurance.  While there is no correct answer to the question as posed, this will vary among different WSCs, there is a simpler way to think about insurance in general that may make finding what is right answer for you easier. Buying life insurance, like almost all insurance, is on average a money losing purchase.  This is simply because the companies selling wouldn't offer it if they couldn't expect to make money on it.  Think about buying insurance (a warranty) on a new cell phone, maybe if you are particularly prone to damaging cell phones it can be in your favor, but for most of the people that buy it will lose money on average. People, of course, still buy insurance anyway to protect themselves from unlikely but very bad consequences.  The big reason to make this trade off is if the loss will have big lasting consequences.  To stay with our cell phone example having to replace a cell phone, at least for me, would be annoying but not a catastrophic event.  For myself, the protection is not worth the warranty cost, but that is not true for everyone. Life insurance is a pretty extreme case of this, but I find the best question to ask is ""if you (you and your spouse) were to die will your dependents lives become so much worse that you really dislike the idea of not being insured?"" For some working seniors, they already have enough saved to bridge their kids/spouse to adulthood/old-age that insurance makes no sense.  For some, their children/husband/wife would be destitute and insurance is an obvious choice and an easy price to pay even if it is very high.  The example you suggest seems on the border and good questions to ask are: Thinking about those questions may help you understand if the protection offers is worth the cost." You are likely thinking of a individual variable insurance contract (IVIC) , better known as a segregated fund, or a principal-protected note (PPN). For a segregated fund, to get a full guarantee on invested capital, you need a 100/100 where the maturity value and death benefit are each 100% guaranteed. The PPN works similar to a long-term GIC (or CD) with a variable investment component.  The thing is, neither of these things are cheap and the cost structure that is built in behind them makes it difficult to make any real above market rates of return. In both cases, if you try to break the contracts early then the guarantees are null and void and you get out what you get out. The problem with the cash value is that it's really slow to accumulate. For the first many years you'll just be paying premiums which are front loaded until the insurance company gets their money back. Whole life is NOT an investment, regardless of what your 'advisor' says. It's insurance, and expensive insurance at that. "The short answer is ""No"". There a 2 ways to get cash from a life insurance policy.  If the policy has cash value greater than the surrender value, then the difference can be borrowed, but will generally increase premiums in the future.   The other method, available on many term policies allows the owner to receive part of the death benefit if the insured has a physician willing to certify that he/she will probably pass away within a 12 month period.  Several carriers also offer cash benefits for critical care." You only insure assets, and you only insure them for the people that depend on them. You don't need to insure a liability. Therefore: Example: I have life insurance equal to a couple of years salary, in order to make sure my wife doesn't encounter any hardships if I die. I'm the primary income earner, and she will take of the kids. Once we have kids we'll get life insurance for her to cover what the costs would be to take care of the kids if she were to die. The main Part of this strategy is to get as much money as possible into the policy and then take policy loans ever year. As long as you don't withdraw too much too fast you can take a loan each year that is tax free and then once you die your beneficiary still receives the face value of the policy less any outstanding  loans tax free. "Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: There may or may not be a medical exam, or a physical, as with a life insurance policy. But your medical history is considered in the underwriting process. Disclosure: I once worked as a financial advisor, and held an insurance license for life, annuity and long-term care. It has been 8 years since I left that line of work. There are some ""knock-out"" questions that the salesperson is encouraged/required to ask just to see if there would be anything obvious that would disqualify you. The only one I can remember from that list is COPD. If you have that as a diagnosis in your personal medical history, the instruction to the salesperson is to not waste anybody's time. There were several other conditions, all with very long technical names.   If you're not disqualified by the no-brainer knock-out questions, your medical history will likely be included in the underwriting process.  Not every serious illness is an automatic disqualifier, including cancer. It may cause your premiums to be a little higher, as the underwriters will take a closer look and increase your risk profile due to the history. There may be some group policies where underwriting is limited or not required at all. As with all group insurance policies, the healthy members in the group are paying more in premiums than they otherwise would, in order to ""subsidize"" the premiums of the less healthy members. It's almost always cheaper to get your own personal policy unless you know you wouldn't qualify for it. Then, the group policy might be your only chance for some coverage. Age 60-62 is statistically the best time to purchase LTCI. On average, if you make it to 62, you have a very high chance of making it to 90. (These were the numbers available to me 8 years ago when I was in the business.) After 62, the prices go up a lot faster with each year of age.  I can't answer with anything helpful about your spouse's specific situation. It would be good to talk to a licensed insurance broker about it (not a salesman from a specific company). The broker is not necessarily bound to disclose personal details you might have shared with them. The company salesman would be obligated to disclose it to their company." If your uncle is looking to maintain life insurance coverage for specific shorter period of time he may want to look into hybrid life insurance. If you buy a hybrid universal life policy, the premium and death benefit can be guaranteed to last until any age. Since, most permanent policies focus on cash value accumulation it is hard for most people to find cheap whole life or affordable universal life. Consumers only looking for a longer duration have a more flexible choice with a new hybrid product that combines elements of both term life coverage and universal life. Hybrid universal  policies are much cheaper then other permanent coverage such as whole life coverage because they do not emphasize cash value accumulation. However, the premiums and death benefits can still be guaranteed to a specific age (i.e. 85, 90, 95, 100). So, premiums can be scaled to coordinate with your desired budget and the face amount required for your family. Typical universal life and whole life insurance contracts only allow for lifetime coverage. However, hybrid universal life offers a much smaller premium because the coverage can be dialed into a specific age. If the policyholder does live beyond the originally selected age, the death benefit will simply begin getting smaller, while the original premium will  continue to remain the same. "Buy term and invest the rest is something you will hear all the time, but actually cash value life insurance is a very misunderstood, useful financial product. Cash value life insurance makes sense if: If you you aren't maxing out your retirement accounts, just stick with term insurance, and save as much as you can for retirement. Otherwise, if you have at least 5 or 10k extra after you've funded retirement (for at least 7 years),  one financial strategy is to buy a whole life policy from one of the big three mutual insurance firms.  You buy a low face value policy, for example, say 50k face value; the goal is to build cash value in the policy. Overload the policy by buying additional paid up insurance in the first 7 years of the policy, using a paid-up addition rider of the policy. This policy will then grow its cash value at around 2% to 4% over the life of the policy....similar perhaps to the part of your portfolio that would would be in muni bonds; basically you are beating inflation by a small margin. Further, as you dump money into the policy, the death benefit grows. After 7 or 8 years, the cash value of the policy should equal the money you've put into it, and your death benefit will have grown substantially maybe somewhere around $250k in this example. You can access the cash value by taking a policy loan; you should only do this when it makes sense financially or in an emergency; but the important thing to realize is that your cash is there, if you need it.  So now you have insurance, you have your cash reserves. Why should you do this?  You save up your cash and have access to it, and you get the insurance for ""free"" while still getting a small return on your investment. You are diversifying your financial portfolio, pushing some of your money into conservative investments." Options do act, somewhat, like insurance.... However.... An insurance policy will not have such short term expiration time frames. A 20 year term life insurance policy can be thought of as insurance with an expiration. But the expiration on options is in weeks, not decades.  So (IMO) options make terrible insurance policies because of the very short term expirations they have. There's a cool calculator at Money Chimp that lets you plug in a start and end year and see what the compound annual growth rate of the S&P 500.  The default date range of 1871 through 2010 gives a rate of 8.92% for example. Something you need to take into account when comparing returns to a whole life policy is what happens to the cash value in your policy when you die.  Many of these policies are written so that your beneficiaries only get the face value of the policy, and the insurance company keeps the cash value. "These policies are usually called dread disease policies or critical illness insurance, and they normally aren't a good deal. Furthermore, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, such policies may become less common or disappear entirely. These policies aren't a great deal because of the effects of adverse selection and asymmetric information, two closely related concepts in the economics of insurance. When you purchase an insurance policy, the insurance company charges you a premium based on your average risk level or the average risk level of your risk pool, e.g. you and your fellow employees, if you get insurance through your employer. For health insurance, this average risk level is the average probability that you'll incur healthcare costs. The insurer's actuaries calculate this probability from numerous factors, like your age, sex, current health, socioeconomic status, etc. Asymmetric information exists when you know more about this probability than the insurance company does. For example, you may look like a relatively low-risk individual on paper, but little does the insurance company know, BASE jumping is one of your hobbies. Because you know about your hobby and the insurance company doesn't, you secretly know that your risk of incurring healthcare expenses is much higher than the insurance company expects. If the insurance company knew this, they would like to charge you a much higher premium, if they could. However, they can't, because a) they don't know about your hobby, and b) the premium may be decided for the entire group/risk pool, so they can't increase it simply because a few individuals in the group have higher risk levels. Adverse selection occurs when individuals with higher risk levels are more likely to buy insurance. You may decide that because of your dangerous hobby, you do want to take advantage of your employer's healthcare plan. Unfortunately for the insurance company, they can't adjust their price accordingly. Adverse selection is a major factor in insurance markets, so I didn't go into much detail here (too much detail is probably off-topic anyway). I can point you towards more resources on the topic if you're interested.  However, the situation is different when you purchase a dread disease policy.  By expressing interest in such a specific policy, e.g. a cancer insurance policy, you signal to the insurance company that you feel you have a higher risk of facing that disease. In your case, you're signaling to the insurance company that your family probably has a history of cancer or that you have habits that make you more susceptible to it, and your premiums will be higher to compensate the insurance company for bearing this additional risk. Since the insurance company already has a rough estimate of your chances of developing that illness, they may already know that you have a higher chance of facing it. However, when you express interest in a disease-specific policy, this signals the existence of asymmetric information (your family history or other habits), and the insurer assumes you know something they don't that elevates your risk level of that specific disease. Since these policies are optional policies often sold as riders to existing policies, the insurance company has more flexibility in pricing them. They can charge you a higher premium because you've signaled to the insurer that you have a significantly above-average risk of contracting a specific disease*. Also, the insurer can do a much better job of estimating the expected costs of insuring you since they need only focus on data surrounding one disease. The policy will be priced accordingly, i.e. in such a way that isn't necessarily beneficial to you. Furthermore, most dread disease policies aren't guaranteed renewable, which means that even if you are willing to keep paying the premiums, the insurance company doesn't have to keep insuring you. As your risk of developing the specific disease grows, e.g. with age, it may pass the point where insuring you is no longer an acceptable risk. The company expects you to develop the illness with the next few renewal cycles, so they decide not to renew your policy. The end result? The insurance company has the premiums you've paid previously, but you no longer have coverage for that illness, and ex post, you've suffered a net loss with no reduction of risk for the foreseeable future.  Dread disease policies are changing under the Affordable Care Act. According to healthcare.gov Starting in 2014, ... all new health insurance plans sold to individuals and small businesses, and plans purchased in the new Affordable Insurance Exchanges, must include a range of essential health benefits. The essential health benefits include quite a few areas of coverage; since this applies to policies offered on the state insurance exchanges and those offered outside of it, dread disease policies wouldn't seem to qualify. For more information, you can read the linked page on healthcare.gov or see Section 1302, subsection b), titled ""Essential Health Benefits Requirements"" in the law itself (p87). I imagine more details will be available on a state-by-state basis through 2014 and into 2015.  One legal source (see the discussion on p24) states that: whatever else the ACA does with excepted benefit policies, including specific disease and fixed dollar indemnity policies, it does explicitly provide that such policies do not count as minimum essential coverage for purposes of the ACA This seems pretty straightforward; a dread disease (or ""specific disease"" policy, as it's referred to in the article), won't count towards the minimum essential requirements. This may not be an issue for you, but for others, it's important to understand that you'll still need to pay the penalty if you only purchase one of these policies. The ACA spells this out in Section 5000(f) (see p316, which states that ""excepted benefit policies"" are excluded and defines them using the definition in the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). **The PSHA specifically includes ""Coverage only for a specified disease or illness"" in their definition of ""excepted benefit policies"" (see section 2791(b), paragraph 3A on p82, so it's probably a safe bet that such policies won't count towards the minimum. Also, as Rick pointed out in the comments, the Affordable Care Act also forbids lifetime limits on most insurance plans, so assuming you find an insurance policy with adequate coverage for the specific disease you're worried about, such a plan should cover the related expenses without a lifetime limit. Deductibles, annual limits, and other factors may complicate this somewhat.  In the section about lifetime limits (Sec. 2711, p2), the Affordable Care Act states that: A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish ... lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary.  However, the law states in the next paragraph that the preceding statement should not be construed to prevent a group health plan or health insurance coverage from placing annual or lifetime per beneficiary limits on specific covered benefits that are not essential health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted under Federal or State law The section also contains similarly vague caveats about annual limits, so the actual details and limits may vary once individual states finalize their policies. The law is intentionally vague because the vast majority of the law's implementation is left up to individual states. Furthermore, certain parts of the law specify actions involving the Secretary of Health and Human Services, so these may require further codification in the future too. You should still read the fine print of any insurance policy you buy and evaluate it as you would any contract (see the next section).  Since a dread disease policy probably isn't a good idea, you'll probably want to evaluate the healthcare plans offered by your employer or individual plans offered in your area (if your employer doesn't offer coverage). I've tried to include the basic points offered in these articles to give you or future visitors some idea of where to start. These points may change once the Affordable Care Act is implemented, so I'll try to keep them as general as possible.  Services - Above and beyond the minimum essential requirements, what services does the plan offer? Are these services a good match for you and/or your family, or do they add unnecessary cost to the premium with little or no benefit? For example, my health insurance plan offers basic dental coverage with a small co-pay, so I don't need a separate dental plan, even though my employer offers one.  Choice - What doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. are preferred providers under your plan? Do you need a referral from your primary care doctor to see a specialist, or can you find one on your own? Are the preferred providers convenient for you? In my first year of college (about five years ago), my student health insurance only covered a few hospitals that were in the suburbs and somewhat difficult for me to reach. This is something to keep in mind, depending on where you live.  Costs - This is a major one, obviously. Deductibles, copays, maximum cost limits over a year or your lifetime, out-of-network costs, etc. are all variables to consider.  There are other factors, but since I don't have a family, other members of the site can provide more detailed information about what to look for in family policies.  In place of a dread disease policy, you're likely better off purchasing a comprehensive health insurance policy, perhaps a catastrophic coverage policy with a high deductible that will kick in once you've exhausted your standard insurance policy. However, this may be a moot point since the passage of the Affordable Care Act may significantly reduce the availability of such policies anyway." Whole life policies have its own useful purpose, but it is never meant to be a vehicle that allows you to maximize cash value accumulation. Yes, you can buy term and invest the difference. Assuming you set out to reduce your liabilities to zero/minimum when that term policy ends or you have no such desires to transfer your wealth to your next of kin income tax free. Indexed universal life and variable universal life is much better suited for cash value accumulation when looking at life insurance products. The NYSE 20 Year Plus Treasury Bond Index (AXTWEN) is a multiple-security fixed income index that aims to track the total returns of the long-term 20 year and greater maturity range of the U.S. Treasury bond market. The index constituent bonds are weighted by their relative amounts outstanding.One cannot directly invest in an Index. Index Bond Maturities 24 to 27 Years  20.36% /27 to 29 Years     79.64% Index Duration 17.47 Years An oversimplification of how bonds value changes as rates change is they are inversely related based on the duration of the bond.  Think of duration as the time-weighted average of all the coupons and the final payment. In this case, a drop in rates of about 1% will cause a rise in value of about 17.4%. Long term rates took a drop in the last year.