Life insurance, as important as it is in our lives, is still failing to get the sort of attention it deserves from us. From the scores of thousands who avoid purchasing a life cover to the few who would do anything, despite taking out the policy, to cheat their way to a payout, the tale is endless.

In recent times insurers, bothered by increasing nonchalance on the part of customers, are leaving no stone unturned as they try to establish or reinstate people’s trust in life insurance. Shortly before Fathers’ Day was marked a couple of months ago, they painted a picture of an over-worked yet underpaid family head, the breadwinner – a dad in this case – who did not have a life cover. In their estimation, he was working very hard and was unpaid for it, but if someone else was to do the same odd jobs he was bound to be paid wages totalling up to £16,484.

Thus, they concluded that a breadwinner who played such a crucial role in the family could not afford not to have life insurance policy. Failure to do so, they argued strongly, could amount to inviting calamity if the breadwinner was to suddenly die or be incapacitated to such a point that he was neither able to fend for the family nor do those unpaid chores.

While many of us may dismiss such reminder as a mere advert stunt whose sole aim is to quickly pressure us into making our mind to part with our money, the reality is that we need some sort of fallback in case things go skewed. Often, where the necessary precautions are not taken, people end up dealing with the double tragedy of losing a loved one as well as their only source of livelihood. And if you add other vital functions that would be left undone, it becomes a bigger calamity.

Insurers are right in asking us to pay for life cover, yet they may not be entirely correct in fixing the premiums. This much was admitted earlier in the week by Barclays’ life insurance, even as it highlighted people’s assumption that it is an expensive investment whose reward may not be reaped in the soonest future nor even in their lifetime. This, in essence, explains the general willingness not to purchase the policy.

In some extreme situations, like the recent case of Ahmad and Anne Akhtary – the separated couple who attempted to swindle Norwich Union – policyholders determined to reap their reward here and now hatch plots to ensure they get a payout. The Akhtarys may have failed in their bid, but some like back-from-the-dead canoeist John Darwin and his wife Anne were successful in executing what has been described as a “determined, sustained and sophisticated” life insurance fraud. Although a supposedly dead Darwin got £250,000 payout, the couple were found out and sent to jail in shame. For many would-be fraudsters, this is major lesson to learn from.

One vital point I need to make is the fact that at a time like this people are bound to be desperate and suspicious. They would try to be very cautious of their expenses, including insurance bills. It could also mean a time for fraudsters to flourish.

A positive step, as some insurance companies have already demonstrated, is to consider easing the burden on customers by making premiums as affordable as possible. This will, perhaps, have the twin benefits of encouraging greater patronage and building trust in insurers.