Summary of this article
Sum insured restoration refills cover after a claim within policy year
Allows multiple hospitalisations without exhausting insurance protection
Some plans restrict restored cover to different illness or family member
Experts say restoration supplements but cannot replace base cover
The Supreme Court (SC) has questioned why railway passengers who buy tickets at reservation counters cannot opt for travel insurance when the same facility is available to those booking tickets online. The court indicated that such a distinction creates an unnecessary gap between passengers undertaking the same journey.
The matter came up before the court in a petition pointing out that rail travel insurance is currently available only to passengers who book their tickets online. When a ticket is booked online, travellers can choose to add insurance by paying a small premium. However, the option does not appear when tickets are purchased at railway reservation counters, according to a recent report by LiveLaw.in.
The bench observed that once a facility is introduced for passengers travelling by train, it should not depend on the method used to buy the ticket.
2 March 2026
Get the latest issue of Outlook Money
Travel insurance for rail passengers was introduced as an optional cover meant to provide financial support in the event of accidents during the journey. The coverage generally includes compensation for incidents such as accidental death or permanent disability.
Court Points To Unequal Access
The SC noted that railway passengers form a single class of travellers and should not be treated differently merely because some book tickets online while others buy them at counters.
Many railway passengers in India still buy their tickets at reservation counters. This remains common in smaller towns and rural areas, where internet access may be patchy, and several travellers continue to prefer booking tickets in person.
By linking the insurance option only to online ticket bookings, a large section of travellers is effectively left out of the system. The court observed that such an arrangement raises questions about fairness, especially when the insurance is meant to provide a basic layer of protection during train travel.
The bench indicated that passengers purchasing tickets at counters should also have the opportunity to opt for travel insurance by paying the required premium.
Railways Mention Practical Concerns
During the proceedings, the railways pointed out certain practical difficulties in extending travel insurance to tickets bought at reservation counters.
According to the submissions made, one challenge relates to collecting accurate passenger identification details during counter bookings. Insurance companies need accurate passenger details to settle claims. The railways told the court that collecting and verifying such information during counter bookings can be more difficult.
The railways also said that missing or incorrect passenger details could make it harder to process claims and might lead to misuse.
The court, however, indicated that administrative challenges should not be the sole reason to deny passengers access to a facility that already exists for others.
Instead, the bench suggested that the authorities should look for ways to address these operational issues while ensuring that passengers buying tickets from counters are not excluded from the option of travel insurance.
The matter also brings attention to the broader challenge of balancing digital and offline access to public services. While online ticket booking has become common for many travellers, a large number of railway passengers across the country still depend on reservation counters.
Ensuring that facilities connected to railway travel remain available to both sets of passengers is essential for maintaining equal access within the system.
