Pick up any insurance policy. The 180-odd policies under the four insurance companies of General Insurance Company (GIC) and the life insurance policies of Life Insurance Corporation and Peerless in their exclusion clauses will tell you that in the event of war (whether declared or not -- Kargil has not been declared as a war so far), the insurance cover does not apply. For instance, a Money Back LIC policy clearly states that ``no claims can be made for injuries or death resulting from riots, civil commotion, rebellion, war (whether war be declared or not), invasion, hunting, mountaineering, steeple chasing, or racing of any kind.'' And yes, claims can't be made in the event of theuse of nuclear weapons!

All non-life policies too, that include personal accident, Mediclaim, fire, motor vehicles, transit and miscellaneous ones (like those for householders, shopkeepers, bankers, for livestock and cattle etc) have this clause. The only exception is transit insurance where if you pay an additional premium, you can get your goods (that are being transported through marine cargo or by air) insured against war and strike, riot and civil commotion (SRCC). According to an NIC official, after the 1984 riots, certain policies like private car insurance and personal accident insurance can be insured against riots and strike by paying some additional premium.

The personal accident insurance exclusion clause also mentions that the policy does not cover death, dispairment injury or disability resulting from services on duty with any of the armed forces.

Even though insurance companies do insure army personnel, they don't benefit if they get injured or lose their life or property in a war or in awar-like situation. In such a scenario their army group insurances come to their aid. Over the past two months, several newspapers and news agencies have been trying to get their reporters (who were being sent to Kargil) insured against personal accident. And all of them found out that at Kargil, any policy is really of no use.

What is peculiar is the ignorance about this clause even amongst the top officials of insurance companies. For instance, R Vishwanathan, General Manger of National Insurance Company (NIC) and a member of the board of NIC, who is posted in Calcutta, told this reporter in a telephonic conversation that if the editor of The Indian Express chooses to send this reporter to Kargil for work and if the reporter is already covered against personal accident, NIC will have to give the claims in the event of an injury or death. His argument was that NIC will not insure journalists going to Kargil as of today, because there may be a threat to their life. ``But if they already hold aninsurance policy -- life or non-life -- no one can deny then of claims,'' he added. He obviously didn't have his facts clear.

The reason why insurance companies don't insure persons or property against war, war-like situations, invasion etc, is that ``insurance companies will not be able to absorb such huge losses in such situations,'' a top official at GIC said. This, according to him, is a world-wide practice. Under such conditions, only the government can come help the victims and pay compensation.