Submit your Article

It has been three years since the Covid-19 pandemic subsided, but more than 95,000 are still awaiting their promised insurance payouts. The government has yet to release over Rs 11.34bn in covid insurance claims, leaving many policyholders in limbo.

During the pandemic, around 1.75m policies were issued under the covid insurance scheme, with nearly 165,059 claims filed. While 69,765 policyholders have received payments totaling around Rs 6.58bn, the remaining 95,294 have received nothing. Insurance companies say that they are unable to make the payments because the government, which had promised to cover liabilities beyond a certain threshold, has not allocated the necessary funds. The Ministry of Finance, meanwhile, cites a lack of resources amid ongoing budget constraints.

“The covid insurance issue is a priority,” said Ambika Prasad Khanal, the spokesperson for the Ministry of Finance. “However, due to the pressure on resources, nothing can be said about insurance payout at the moment.” The finance ministry has failed to commit funds, despite repeated requests from both insurance companies and the Nepal Insurance Authority (NIA)—the insurance market regulator.

“Insurance companies have done what they could. The rest is up to the government,” said Nirmal Adhikari, spokesperson for the Nepal Insurance Authority. “We are mere coordinators; it is the government’s responsibility.”

Frustrated by the government's inaction, insurance companies and policyholders have taken the matter to the Supreme Court. They have filed lawsuits against both the NIA and the government.  The Nepal Insurers Association, the umbrella body of 14 non-life insurance companies, has said that the government has failed to honor its financial obligations.

“We were told the government would shoulder the burden beyond Rs 3.5bn,” said Chunky Kshetri, former chairperson of the association. “But after years of waiting, we have been left with no choice but to seek justice in court.” The lack of payment has not only affected individual policyholders but also had broader implications for the insurance sector, which is grappling with reduced credibility and operational challenges.

Complicating matters further are allegations of fraud. At least 669 cases of duplicate or fraudulent claims, amounting to Rs 63.9 million in irregular payouts, have been identified. However, insurance expert Rabindra Ghimire said this was largely due to the lack of strong oversight mechanisms and clear policy limits. “Insurance fraud is common all over the world, especially in health insurance,” Ghimire said. “Here, the government did not set timeframes or caps on covid insurance payouts, unlike Thailand and Singapore, which managed expectations and liabilities from the beginning.”

Thailand and Singapore limited their coverage to small amounts and set deadlines for claims which helped prevent excessive liabilities. Nepal, however, offered up to Rs 100,000 per person with no clear claim deadlines which led to overwhelming demand and a ballooning fiscal responsibility. The covid insurance scheme was launched in April 2020 with premium rates as low as Rs 300 for coverage of Rs 50,000.

The price of gold dropped by Rs 1, 500 per tola in the domestic market on Thursday. 

According to the Federation of Nepal Gold and Silver Dealers’ Association, the yellow metal is being traded at Rs 187, 800 per tola today. 

Similarly, the price of silver has dropped by Rs 10 and is being traded at Rs 1, 995 per tola today.

The Nepal Stock Exchange (NEPSE) gained 16. 55  points to close at 2,692. 18 points on Wednesday.

Similarly, the sensitive index surged by 3. 95 points to close at 460. 92 points.

A total of 20,759,547-unit shares of 323 companies were traded for Rs 8. 58 billion.

Meanwhile, Om Megashree Pharmaceuticals Limited (OMPL) was the top gainer today, with its price surging by 10. 00 percent.

Likewise, Barahi Hydropower Public Limited (BHPL) was the top loser as its price fell by 6. 84 percent.

At the end of the day, total market capitalization stood at Rs 1. 51 trillion.

The recent month-long teachers’ movement, which was driven by the demand for the immediate enactment of the Education Act, has underscored the need for urgent reforms in Nepal’s community education system. While the movement primarily focused on securing professional rights and employment stability, it largely sidelined issues related to the quality of education—raising concerns about whether such protests truly contribute to meaningful educational reform.

Although the movement did not directly address systemic improvements, some of its outcomes are expected to indirectly benefit school education. However, once the protest gained momentum, discussions around key policy issues that should have been addressed in the Education Act were overshadowed by demands for teachers’ rights and benefits. Experts argue that workplace stability and social security are key to unlocking educators' full potential.

Despite this understanding, various categories of teachers have been created over time—often due to political favoritism and donor-driven programs—leading to further complications. A lack of timely problem-solving by authorities has emboldened protestors, allowing them to dominate education discourse more than the official mechanisms.

Two major factors are seen as the primary reasons behind the delay in passing the Education Act. First, existing education policy mandates that institutional schools be converted into trusts after a certain period, a point of contention. Second, the government has yet to clearly decide whether to enforce the constitutional provision of free school education or to redefine the objective of school education altogether.

This delay is further complicated by a conflict of interest. Many political leaders own institutional schools and hold influential positions in the education sector. This dual role hinders the creation of unbiased legislation. Moreover, although the constitution and laws guarantee compulsory and free education up to grade eight, in practice, community schools continue to charge parents monthly fees under various pretexts, including for “support” and administrative costs. Even the Examination Board collects fees under the guise of registration and exam charges.

Given these realities, there is growing acknowledgment within the current leadership that making school education entirely free may not be feasible without compromising quality. As the debate continued following the submission of a parliamentary subcommittee’s report, attention remained fixed on teacher adjustments—such as increasing the number of positions and making temporary or contract-based teachers permanent—rather than addressing deeper issues within the education system.

Meanwhile, data from the Economic Survey sheds light on structural challenges within community schools. Of the 27,990 community schools operating nationwide, 15,965 have fewer than 100 students. Organizing proper teaching and staffing for such small student populations is highly complex. Another 9,704 schools have between 100 and 500 students, while only around 1,600 schools enroll more than 1,000 students—suggesting that only a small fraction meet the criteria for being considered standard schools.

This data indicates that the current focus of debate is detached from the pressing needs of the education sector. In light of this, restructuring and consolidating schools should be part of the broader reform agenda. While merging schools may be necessary, it alone cannot solve the problem. Instead, implementing multi-grade teaching systems with appropriate teacher training in sparsely populated areas could address the challenges more effectively.

As the government prepares to introduce the new School Education Act, it is crucial to base reforms on ground realities. A task force composed of independent experts should be formed to study the actual conditions of community schools. Without considering factors such as Nepal’s diverse geography, migration patterns, and shifting parental attitudes, any hastily prepared legislation risks exacerbating existing problems. While the government has proposed issuing the act by July 29, education stakeholders argue that taking four to six additional months to develop a more comprehensive and responsive law would be more beneficial in the long run.