Built a tool that catches the insurance clauses that actually get claims rejected.
my sister's health insurance claim got rejected a while back over a clause buried on page 14 that nobody actually reads before signing up. turns out this kind of thing is way more common than i realized, some fine print condition that's technically disclosed but never actually explained to you when you're buying.
that stuck with me enough that i ended up building something for it.
it's a tool where you upload your policy pdf, or just answer a few quick questions if you'd rather not upload anything, and it flags the clauses that typically cause claim rejections. explains everything in plain language instead of the jargon insurers usually bury things in. covers health, term and motor insurance right now.
also works in hindi, marathi and telugu, since a lot of people here genuinely don't read policy documents comfortably in english, and honestly that language gap is part of why so many people get blindsided by fine print in the first place.
no login, doesn't save your data. sticks to just telling you what's in the policy, not whether you should buy it, wanted this to stay strictly factual instead of drifting into advice territory.
still testing, still finding rough edges myself. would genuinely appreciate if some of you tried it against your own policy and told me what it missed or got wrong
The line "tells you what's in the policy, not whether you should buy it" is the smartest part of this, it keeps you out of the regulated-advice conversation entirely while still delivering the value people actually need. The Hindi, Marathi, and Telugu support is probably the bigger moat than the clause-detection itself, most insurtech tools stop at English and miss exactly the population most likely to get blindsided by fine print.
Really practical build with a genuine purpose behind it.
The “strictly factual” boundary is interesting here because users may still make important decisions based on what the tool flags.
I’d be curious which matters more in testing so far: catching more clauses, or making sure users understand why a flagged clause matters.
right now it's leaning more toward making sure people understand why something matters rather than maximizing how many clauses get caught. reasoning is pretty practical honestly, a flag that says "risky" with no context is basically useless, people just get scared or ignore it. the explanation is what actually lets someone go back to the insurer and ask the right question, or decide it doesn't matter for their situation.
also ties into staying on the right side of what's actually allowed here, insurance advice is regulated in india, so the tool sticks to explaining what a clause means and why it's worth checking rather than telling anyone what to do. that boundary actually pushed me toward prioritizing clarity over sheer coverage, since a confusing flag with no real explanation isn't that different from just giving advice by implication.
still early days testing this though, so take that as where i'm leaning, not a settled answer yet. link if you want to see what it actually looks like: https://tc-simplified-v2.netlify.app/
That makes sense. I’d be interested in continuing the conversation beyond the thread — would you be open to sharing the best email to reach you on?