The Supreme Court of India has issued notices to the Center and IRDAI regarding a PIL challenging the permanent exclusion of epilepsy from health insurance, with the court noting the policy is prima facie unscientific. A favorable ruling could compel insurers to treat epilepsy as a standard pre-existing disease with a waiting period rather than a total exclusion.

2) While the case is sub-judice, applicants should disclose their condition and highlight that it is well-controlled to seek coverage under 2024 guidelines 

3) 

IRDAI filed a counter affidavit stating that because regulations were updated in May 2024, people with any pre-existing condition—including epilepsy—can now obtain health insurance in India.

The 2024 updates are available on the IRDAI website.

The Supreme Court of India has issued notice to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) and the Union of India in a Public Interest Litigation challenging the exclusion of epilepsy from health insurance coverage. The notice was issued on 27 May 2025 by a Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. The petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Sanvedana Foundation.
The core challenge in the petition is to the IRDAI Master Circular dated 22 July 2020, which permits insurers to permanently exclude epilepsy from health insurance policies. The petitioners have argued that this blanket exclusion is discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as persons with epilepsy are denied equitable access to health insurance without a rational or scientific basis.
At present, the Supreme Court has only issued notice and sought responses from IRDAI and the Central Government. No interim order has been passed staying the operation of the IRDAI circular or directing insurers to change underwriting practices. The matter is still at a preliminary stage, and further hearings will take place after the respondents file their affidavits.
In terms of likely legal trajectory, if the Supreme Court ultimately finds the exclusion unconstitutional or arbitrary, it may direct IRDAI to amend its guidelines. This could result in epilepsy being treated like other pre-existing diseases, subject to disclosure, waiting periods, or case-specific underwriting, rather than being permanently excluded. Any such change would likely operate prospectively and through revised IRDAI regulations.
Until a final judgment is delivered, the existing regulatory framework continues to apply. Insurers are legally permitted to exclude epilepsy or deny coverage based on it under the current IRDAI guidelines. Individuals with well-controlled epilepsy may still attempt to obtain coverage through individual underwriting, higher premiums, waiting periods, or insurers offering specialised products, but there is no statutory compulsion on insurers at this stage.
Raising awareness or seeking clarification through public or legal forums is legally permissible, provided personal medical details are handled carefully and disclosures to insurers remain truthful. Advocacy focused on policy reform does not, by itself, adversely affect an individual insurance application.
As of now, there is no interim relief or subsequent order reported by the Supreme Court lifting or suspending the epilepsy exclusion. The only confirmed judicial action is the issuance of notice calling for responses from IRDAI and the Union of India.

This Supreme Court notice is a significant step, indicating the Court is willing to examine whether blanket exclusions for epilepsy violate constitutional rights and IRDAI's own regulations against discrimination. The likely trajectory involves IRDAI and insurance companies filing responses, followed by hearings. Possible outcomes range from the Court directing IRDAI to frame new, non-discriminatory guidelines for underwriting pre-existing conditions like controlled epilepsy, to a more specific order prohibiting permanent, blanket exclusions. The petitioner's argument that such exclusions are arbitrary and unscientific, especially for controlled cases, has a strong foundation in recent judicial trends favoring the rights of persons with disabilities.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the petitioner, it would fundamentally change underwriting practices. Insurers would likely be prohibited from applying a permanent, blanket exclusion for epilepsy. Instead, they would have to adopt a more nuanced risk-assessment model, potentially loading the premium or imposing a moratorium period (e.g., 2-4 years of stability) for well-controlled cases, after which coverage would be provided. This would align with practices for other controlled chronic conditions like hypertension or diabetes. IRDAI would likely issue a circular mandating these changes, making health insurance accessible to millions with controlled epilepsy.

Until a final decision, individuals with well-controlled epilepsy should disclose their condition transparently in applications. Approach multiple insurers to see their underwriting stance, as some may offer coverage with a loading or a specific exclusion period. Clearly provide medical records demonstrating long-term control and stability. You can also reference the pending Supreme Court case in your communication with the insurer's underwriting team, urging a fair assessment. Avoid withholding information, as that can lead to policy cancellation later. Consider proceeding with the best available option while the legal process unfolds, as a future favorable judgment could lead to a review of your policy terms.

Yes, raising awareness through appropriate forums is advisable and can strengthen the collective cause. You can contribute to or follow the discourse in responsible media, patient advocacy groups (like the Indian Epilepsy Association), and on legal platforms. This public pressure can encourage IRDAI to proactively review its guidelines. However, for your individual application, it is prudent to keep advocacy separate. Directly confronting an insurer's underwriting team with legal arguments during your personal application might not be productive and could lead to a straightforward rejection. Focus first on securing a policy, while supporting the broader legal challenge externally.

As of my last update, there has been no publicly reported interim order from the Supreme Court in this specific case (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 561/2024). The notice was issued on July 19, 2024. The next step would be the filing of counter-affidavits by IRDAI and the insurance companies. For the most current status and to access any official orders, you should regularly check the Supreme Court's case status website (https://main.sci.gov.in/) using the diary number, or follow reliable legal news portals like LiveLaw or Bar & Bench for updates. No interim relief has been granted yet.

The matter will be ruled against the insurance companies and the same will be inclusive