Special Report: The Insurance Development and Regulatory Authority (IDRA) has announced the “IDRA Insurance Excellence Award 2025” with the stated aim of recognizing good governance and performance in Bangladesh’s insurance sector. However, since the list of selected companies was published, serious questions have emerged: Is this truly recognition based on merit, or has the award become a form of “award business”?

According to IDRA, a total of 13 insurance companies—seven from the non-life sector and six from the life sector—have been selected for the award. On January 18, companies were formally notified through a circular signed by Monira Begum, Executive Director (Non-Life) of IDRA.

The notification stated that the goal of the award is to build a positive image of the insurance sector, restore public confidence, and recognize good performance. IDRA claims that after approval at its 192nd board meeting, it evaluated companies’ governance, management, and performance using various indicators and ranked them from first to fifth place.

However, industry insiders are questioning why IDRA has not publicly disclosed the evaluation criteria, weighting system, or data sources. Without transparency about how the companies were assessed, many argue that the process cannot be considered credible.

A closer look at the Insurance Development and Regulatory Authority Act 2010 also raises legal questions. Section 15 of the Act outlines the authority’s functions and responsibilities in 22 sub-clauses, but nowhere does it explicitly mention that IDRA has the power to grant awards to insurance companies. This has further fueled debate over the legitimacy of the initiative.

The most serious controversy is that some companies allegedly selected for the award have violated regulatory requirements. Under insurance law, companies must be listed on the stock market within a specified time. Several industry officials claim that some of the selected firms have failed to meet this obligation for years.
There are also allegations that in some award-winning companies, the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) remained vacant far beyond the legally permitted period. By law, the CEO post cannot remain vacant for more than three months, with a possible extension of another three months. If the position remains empty beyond six months, an administrator should be appointed. Yet, despite such violations, those companies reportedly made the award list.

Moreover, several companies selected for the award are reportedly not listed on the stock exchange at all. These include General Insurance Corporation, MetLife, Jiban Bima Corporation, and Guardian Life. In the case of Guardian Life, the CEO position was reportedly vacant from 2021 until January 20 of this year.
Another point of confusion is why multiple companies were placed jointly in the same ranking positions without any explanation in IDRA’s official communication.

In the non-life category, the rankings are as follows:
• 1st: Pragati Insurance Limited
• 2nd: General Insurance Corporation
• 3rd: Reliance Insurance PLC
• 4th: Green Delta Insurance PLC
• 5th (joint): Eastland Insurance PLC, Sena Insurance PLC, and United Insurance Company Limited
In the life category:
• 1st: American Life Insurance Company Limited (MetLife)
• 2nd: Pragati Life Insurance PLC
• 3rd: Delta Life Insurance Company Limited
• 4th: Jiban Bima Corporation
• 5th (joint): National Life Insurance PLC and Guardian Life Insurance Limited

Several senior insurance officials say that some of these companies are effectively ineligible under existing laws and regulatory standards, yet have still been declared “excellent.” They warn that such decisions discourage companies that actually comply with regulations.
Critics also allege that performance was not the main consideration in the selection. They say no stakeholder opinions were taken, and no evaluation reports, data, or review documents have been published. As a result, the entire process lacks transparency.

The cost of the award ceremony itself has also sparked controversy. IDRA’s circular states that the expenses of the event must be borne by the selected companies. Many in the sector feel this turns a regulatory honor into something that looks like a “purchased recognition.”
One CEO of a selected company said the initiative itself is good, but added, “Even we were surprised to see some of the names on the list. Without transparency, such programs create controversy.”

Another CEO said, “IDRA told us we have to bear the cost of the event, but they haven’t said how much yet. There was no negotiation from our side.”
IDRA’s Media and Communications Adviser and Spokesperson, Saifunnahar Sumi, defended the decision, saying the authority does not have a budget to host such an event. “We wanted to hold the award ceremony at our own office, but we don’t have government funds for this. Since it’s the companies’ achievement, they will jointly bear the cost,” she said.

When asked about awarding companies that allegedly violated laws, she replied, “No, that’s not true. All details will be clarified later.” When questioned about unlisted companies being included, she initially denied it, and later said explanations would be given afterward.

Meanwhile, during preparations for the event, when journalists tried to contact the authority, they were clearly told that media would not be allowed. Observers say this further reinforces suspicions of irregularities. Experts warn that unless such practices are exposed and addressed continuously, this trend will only continue.