AUTHOR: AI-BASED CROP DAMAGE ASSESSMENT: CAN FARMERS CHALLENGE INCORRECT DIGITAL INSURANCE REPORTS?, AUTHOR: Adv. Mansi Mukund Kulkarni
Technology is becoming an important part of crop insurance in India. Satellite images, drones, mobile applications and digital records can help authorities estimate crop loss and process insurance claims. These methods may save time and improve the assessment process. However, a digital report may not always show the actual condition of every farmer’s field. Localised damage, outdated images, incorrect land details or technical errors may affect the result. This article examines how a farmer can question an incorrect technology-based crop assessment under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY). It also discusses the importance of transparency, human review and an effective grievance mechanism. The central argument is that technology should support a fair decision, not replace the farmer’s right to question an incorrect one
ARTICLE
Abstract
Technology is becoming an important part of crop insurance in India. Satellite images, drones, mobile applications and digital records can help authorities estimate crop loss and process insurance claims. These methods may save time and improve the assessment process. However, a digital report may not always show the actual condition of every farmer’s field. Localised damage, outdated images, incorrect land details or technical errors may affect the result. This article examines how a farmer can question an incorrect technology-based crop assessment under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY). It also discusses the importance of transparency, human review and an effective grievance mechanism. The central argument is that technology should support a fair decision, not replace the farmer’s right to question an incorrect one.
1. Introduction
Agriculture is an important source of livelihood in India. Farmers depend on crops for their income, family needs and future agricultural activities. However, farming is exposed to several risks, such as drought, heavy rainfall, floods, hailstorms, pests and diseases. A single natural event can cause serious financial loss to a farmer. Crop insurance schemes are introduced to provide financial support when such losses occur.
The Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY), introduced in 2016, is one of the major crop insurance schemes in India. The scheme aims to provide insurance protection against specified crop losses. Traditionally, crop yield and damage were assessed mainly through field visits and Crop Cutting Experiments (CCEs). Now, technology is also being used to make assessment faster and more objective.
The use of technology creates a new legal concern. Suppose a farmer’s crop is badly damaged by heavy rain, but the digital assessment indicates that the loss is low. If the insurance claim is reduced or rejected on that basis, should the farmer have a right to question the report? In my understanding, the answer should be yes. A technology-based report must be open to verification, especially when it affects a farmer’s financial rights under an insurance scheme.
2. Meaning and use of technology in crop damage assessment
Technology-based crop assessment means using digital tools and scientific information to monitor crops, estimate yield and identify possible damage. It may involve satellite imagery, remote sensing, drones, geo-tagged photographs, weather information and mobile applications.
Under PMFBY, the Government has introduced YES-TECH, which stands for Yield Estimation System Based on Technology. It uses technology-based methods, including remote sensing, to support yield estimation. The Government has also referred to the use of drones, satellite images and the CCE-Agri App for crop insurance-related work. These technologies are intended to improve transparency and help in timely settlement of admissible claims.
It is important to make one clarification. Every digital tool is not necessarily an artificial intelligence system. Some tools collect photographs or records, while others analyse data through technical models. Therefore, the expression “AI-based assessment” in this article refers broadly to automated and technology-assisted assessment. The exact method used in a particular claim should be disclosed by the concerned authority or insurer.
3. Benefits and possible errors in digital reports
Technology can be useful because it can cover large agricultural areas, maintain digital records and reduce delays in collecting information. Satellite images can help compare crop conditions over time. Digital applications can also make it easier to upload field information and monitor the progress of crop insurance work.
At the same time, technology has limitations. First, a satellite image may not clearly show damage to a small field or a particular part of a village. Secondly, the image may have been taken before the crop was damaged. Thirdly, cloud cover, image quality or technical problems may affect the information. Fourthly, wrong survey numbers, land area or crop details in digital records may lead to an incorrect result. Finally, a model may not properly understand local farming conditions or different crop varieties.
For example, heavy rainfall may damage one farmer’s field while nearby fields remain comparatively safe. If the assessment is based only on a wider area, the individual loss may not be properly reflected. This example shows why digital assessment should be supported by field-level evidence wherever the applicable scheme procedure allows it.
4. Legal framework and rights of farmers
The PMFBY Operational Guidelines, the relevant State Government notification and the farmer’s insurance policy are important documents for deciding a crop insurance claim. The rights and responsibilities of farmers, insurance companies and government authorities must be understood with reference to these documents. The applicable procedure may differ according to the type of loss and the crop season.
The Constitution of India is also relevant. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and protection against arbitrary action. Where public authorities implement a government insurance scheme, their decisions should be fair and reasonable. A decision should not be based on an unexplained or incorrect record without giving proper consideration to relevant evidence. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. It may provide a broader constitutional context, but it should not be treated as an automatic guarantee of a particular insurance payment.
The Right to Information Act, 2005 may help a farmer seek information held by a public authority, subject to the Act and its exemptions. Depending on the case, the farmer may seek relevant records, the procedure followed or information about the assessment. RTI is not itself an appeal against an insurance decision, but it may help the farmer understand the basis of that decision.
The applicable insurance grievance system and other legal remedies may also be relevant. A farmer should check the policy terms, the nature of the dispute, the forum’s jurisdiction and limitation period before filing a complaint. It is not correct to assume that every crop insurance dispute will automatically be accepted by every consumer or insurance forum.
5. How can a farmer challenge an incorrect report?
A farmer who believes that a digital report does not show the actual crop loss should act promptly and keep proper records.
First, the farmer should report the crop loss within the period and through the method prescribed under the applicable PMFBY guidelines and policy. The farmer should keep the acknowledgement or complaint number.
Secondly, the farmer should collect evidence from the field. This may include clear photographs and videos, the date of the damage, survey or land records, crop details, insurance policy or enrolment receipt, premium payment details and relevant weather information. Original photographs should be preserved.
Thirdly, the farmer should submit a written complaint to the insurance company and the concerned grievance authority. The complaint should explain why the digital report is incorrect and request the reasons for the assessment. The farmer may also request verification or a fresh inspection, where permitted by the applicable procedure.
Fourthly, the farmer can use the grievance mechanism provided under PMFBY. The official PMFBY portal provides the Krishi Rakshak Portal and Helpline, with the toll-free number 14447, for raising queries, grievances and reporting crop loss. The scheme also provides for District Level Grievance Redressal Committees (DGRCs) and State Level Grievance Redressal Committees (SGRCs). The farmer should follow the current procedure and timelines.
Finally, if the grievance is not resolved, the farmer may consider an appropriate insurance or legal remedy after checking its jurisdiction and limitation requirements. Every application, reply, photograph and acknowledgement should be kept safely. These documents may become important evidence in a later proceeding.
6. Suggestions and legal analysis
In my opinion, the use of technology in crop insurance is a positive step, but the system must remain farmer-friendly. A farmer should not suffer only because a computer-generated report contains an error. The following safeguards can improve the process.
First, the farmer should receive understandable reasons when a claim is reduced or rejected. A general statement that the digital system found no loss is not enough. The assessment method, relevant date and basic information relied upon should be explained, subject to lawful restrictions.
Secondly, there should be an opportunity for human review. If a farmer provides credible photographs or other evidence that conflicts with a digital report, an authorised officer or committee should examine the matter and decide whether a field inspection is required.
Thirdly, the technology should be tested for different crops, regions and weather conditions. Data errors should be capable of correction. Fourthly, grievance facilities should be available in local languages and through both online and offline methods. Many farmers may not have the technical knowledge or internet access required to use digital systems.
Lastly, responsibility should be clearly fixed among the government authorities, insurance companies and technology agencies. A farmer should not be left without a remedy because the mistake was made by a digital system or an outside technology provider. These safeguards can improve accountability and public confidence in crop insurance.
7. Conclusion
Technology can make crop damage assessment quicker and more organised. However, it cannot always understand the complete condition of an individual farmer’s field. An incorrect digital report may affect the amount of insurance compensation received by a farmer and may create serious financial difficulty.
The PMFBY framework provides grievance channels, including the Krishi Rakshak Portal and Helpline and the district and state grievance committees. Farmers should preserve evidence, report losses within the prescribed time and seek review through the applicable procedure. The exact remedy will depend on the policy, the type of loss and the relevant guidelines.
To conclude, technology should be treated as a tool to assist crop assessment and not as an unquestionable final decision-maker. A fair system must provide transparency, reasons, human review and an accessible grievance process. The success of digital crop insurance should be measured not only by speed, but also by fairness and protection of farmers’ interests.
References
1. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY), official portal, https://pmfby.gov.in/
2. Government of India, PMFBY Operational Guidelines, available through the official PMFBY portal, https://pmfby.gov.in/downloads
3. Press Information Bureau, Government of India, “Crop Damage Assessment System for Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana – PMFBY”, 17 December 2024, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2085179
4. Press Information Bureau, Government of India, “Assessment of Crop Losses through Satellite”, 11 February 2025, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2101838
5. Press Information Bureau, Government of India, “Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana”, 2 December 2025, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2197713
6. Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 21.
7. Right to Information Act, 2005.