Joint life insurance sounds efficient — one policy, one premium, two people covered. It's marketed as a simpler, sometimes cheaper option for married couples. The reality is more nuanced, and for most couples, two separate policies is actually the better choice.

The structural problem with a joint plan is what happens after the first claim. In the most common joint plan design — the "first death" plan — the full sum assured pays out when the first person dies, and the policy then terminates. The surviving spouse is left with no cover at all, at an age when they're older, potentially dealing with health conditions, and facing significantly higher premiums if they want to buy a new policy.

"A joint policy gives you one payout for two lives. Two separate policies give you two payouts — and both people stay covered for their full policy term."

There's also a flexibility argument. Two separate policies can have different sum assureds based on each person's income and role. They can have different tenures, different riders, different premium payment terms. One policy covering both people blurs all of that into a one-size-fits-both arrangement.

The exception might be the Kotak Gen2Gen Protect plan's joint/legacy option — specifically designed to cover parent and then transfer cover to a child, which has a very different purpose from standard joint cover.

For couples looking for standard life protection, the near-universal advice is: get two separate term plans. Keep them simple, keep them adequate.