The pitch for whole life insurance is emotionally appealing: "Cover that never expires. A payout no matter when you die. Premium that builds cash value." Compared to a term plan that "expires worthless" if you outlive it, whole life sounds like the responsible adult choice.

But the numbers rarely tell that story. A whole life plan for a 30-year-old costs roughly 8–12x more per year than a term plan for the same sum assured. That premium gap, invested consistently in even a conservative mutual fund over 30 years, will typically generate a corpus that dwarfs the whole life plan's cash value.

"'Buy term and invest the difference' has been the advice of financial planners for decades. The maths still checks out."

This doesn't mean whole life is always wrong. For estate planning purposes — ensuring a large payout regardless of when death occurs, to fund a trust or business succession — whole life has genuine applications. For high-net-worth individuals with specific legacy planning needs, it can make sense.

For the vast majority of working Indians trying to protect their family's income and liabilities — a straightforward term plan wins on cost, simplicity, and efficiency. The money you save on the premium difference is better deployed in a ULIP, a mutual fund SIP, or a pension plan depending on your goals.