Insurance and Pensions

• Statement 1 is correct. The Atal Pension Yojana, launched in May 2015 and administered by the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority, guarantees a defined monthly pension from the age of sixty, and its declared target group is workers in the unorganised sector, who fall outside the Employees' Provident Fund and the National Pension System for government employees and therefore have no institutional retirement provision.
• Statement 2 is incorrect and is the eliminating statement: there is no one-per-family restriction, and eligible members of the same household may each hold an account, which is unsurprising given that the whole object is to widen coverage rather than ration it.
• Statement 3 is correct: on the death of the subscriber the same pension amount is payable to the spouse for life, and on the death of both the accumulated corpus is returned to the nominee. Hence 1 and 3, giving (c).
• Options (b) and (d) fall with statement 2, and (a) requires rejecting the spousal continuation, which is one of the scheme's advertised features. The design principle that resolves the whole item is that a universal-coverage social security scheme does not restrict enrolment by household.

• Option (c) is correct. The National Pension System was made mandatory for State Government employees joining service after the date on which the respective State Government notified its adoption of the system, each State having moved at its own time, so the option's careful wording tracks the actual position.
• Option (a) is wrong because the system is open to Non Resident Indians as well as to resident citizens, NRI entry having been permitted from 2009 subject to FEMA compliance; the word 'only' is the defect.
• Option (b) is wrong on the age band: entry was open from eighteen to sixty years at the time of this paper, later extended to seventy for the All Citizens model, so both limbs of the range as stated are wrong.
• Option (d) is wrong on a single but decisive word. The National Pension System was made mandatory for Central Government employees joining on or after 1 January 2004, but the Armed Forces were expressly excluded from the outset and continue under the defence pension arrangements, so the phrase 'including those of Armed Forces' makes the option false.
• Option (d) is designed to be chosen, since a candidate who recalls only the 2004 threshold will take it. Governing principle for eligibility items: read every qualifier, since here each of the three wrong options fails on a single restrictive or inclusive word rather than on its substance.

Cyber insurance responds to losses arising through the digital medium, and the organising principle is that the harm must be electronic in nature.

• Statement 1 is covered, restoration and data recovery after a malware or ransomware incident being a standard head.
• Statement 3 is covered, since consultant and negotiator fees in an extortion event fall under crisis response costs.
• Statement 4 is covered, third party liability and the cost of legal defence being a core component of any liability policy.
• Statement 2 is not covered and is the discriminating item, because wilful physical destruction of hardware is a property loss and belongs to a householder or all risks policy, not to a cyber policy. The answer is 1, 3 and 4, giving (b).
• Options (a), (c) and (d) all treat physical damage as a cyber risk, which confuses the medium of the loss with the object damaged.

Both statements are correct, so (c) is the answer.

• Statement 1 uses hull in its marine derived sense, the physical asset itself, so aviation hull insurance indemnifies loss of or damage to the airframe, engines and installed equipment, and it is written separately from liability cover for passengers and third parties and from hull war cover.
• Statement 2 states the first tier of the Montreal Convention regime accurately. For death or bodily injury the carrier is strictly liable up to a limit expressed in Special Drawing Rights and revised periodically, and within that tier the claimant need prove only that the death occurred in an accident on board or in embarking or disembarking, not that the carrier was at fault. Above that limit the carrier may escape liability by proving that it was not negligent, but that qualification governs the second tier and does not disturb the statement as made. (a) and (b) each discard a sound statement and (d) discards both.