Companies & Sectors
Kaya Skin Clinic: Marico throws in the towel

Patience amongst Marico shareholders for the Kaya business to break even was running out and the vertical slicing of Marico should provide some respite

After more than a deacde of losses, Marico has decided to cut loose Kaya, the “skin care solutions company”. Marico Kaya Enterprises (MaKE, to be formed). will run the Kaya beauty and wellness chain and will be a separately listed. The appointed date of the demerger is 1 April 2013. It may take about six months to obtain the necessary approvals and complete all formalities, the company said in a statement. Following the demerger, the shareholders of Marico will get one share of Marico Kaya Enterprises with a face value of Rs10 each to be issued at a premium of Rs200 per share for every 50 shares of Marico with a face value of Re1 each.

 

“This corporate restructuring will lead to enhanced shareholder value through sharper focus and greater energy across both organizations and businesses,” Marico said in the release. Unfortunately, the current proposal does not give an option to minority shareholders in Marico not to participate in the MaKE business, according to the analysts in Espirito Santo Securities. Kaya has tried several measures to break even and the analysts were not enthused by the Kaya business. It is believed that a further cash infusion (or strategic investor) might be required in the MaKE business before it can turn into a sustainable business model.

 

The shareholding structure of the to-be listed MaKE business will mirror the shareholding structure of Marico on the date of the demerger, with no holding from the current listed FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) business.

 

The Marico share, after the demerger, is not considered to be an attractive buy by Espirito Santo, and it maintains a ‘sell’ rating.

 

The accumulated losses of Kaya since inception in FY 2003 are estimated to be Rs145 crore in comparison to the existing direct capital employed by the Marico group in the Kaya business of Rs179 crore.

User

COMMENTS

AlbertSmith

3 years ago

A decade of losses? Perhaps they should have thrown in the towel a long time ago.

facial treatment
http://www.cutislaserclinics.com/service...

AlbertSmith

3 years ago

This is a nice post in an interesting line of content.Thanks for sharing this article, great way of bring such topic to discussion.

RTI Judgement Series: How government agencies take away livelihoods

This case reveals how government agencies take away livelihoods of people without bothering about compensating the affected. This is the 19th in a series of important judgements given by Shailesh Gandhi, former CIC, that can be used or quoted in an RTI application


The divisional commissioner of the National Capital Territory (NCT) of New Delhi was directed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) to ensure that details of compensation and rehabilitation to the affected persons who have been displaced must be made available at least on the website. While giving this important judgement, Shailesh Gandhi, former Central Information Commissioner, asked the divisional commissioner to also ensure that information about how the appellant could get the compensation for his loss is communicated to him.

 

“The Divisional Commissioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi is directed to ensure that the details mentioned above are communicated to the appellant before 15 June 2009. The Public Authority will also ensure that in compliance with Section 4 requirements details of the project affected persons and the rehabilitation due to them is made available suo moto before 15 August 2009,” the Commission said in its order dated 27 May 2009.

 

Delhi resident Sunil Kant, on 5 January 2009, sought information from the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Land & Building Department, Government of NCT Delhi about his land, compensation and rehabilitation. He sought information regarding his land, requisition of which has been done by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) due to which he was forced to live without any source of livelihood. He has asked that when and what amount will be given to him as compensation and where will he be rehabilitated. He has said that his land was under Delhi Development Authority (DDA) after 1947 and later acquired by DMRC for construction.

 

The PIO did not even reply. Sunil Kant, then approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA). In its order issued on 13 March 2009, the FAA asked the PIO to inform the appellant (Kant) about the status of the action taken on the said representation along with copy of policy of rehabilitation within a period of 15 days receipt of these orders.

 

After the order from FAA, the PIO gave a copy of the policy for the rehabilitation of Metro Project Affected Persons. Not satisfied with this, Sunil Kant then approached the Commission.

 

During the hearing before the CIC, he stated that he had a 100 sq yard shop where he was running tailoring shop and a barber shop. He said he has been displaced from there on 6 June 2008 and is running from pillar to post.

 

Mr Gandhi noted that the appellant is not a well-educated person and has been deprived from his livelihood. “It is a sad comment that a law abiding citizen is deprived of his property and livelihood by a government without being given alternate place and compensation,” he observed.

 

The Commission in its order issued on 27 May 2009, said, “A modus operandi of this nature, apart from depriving a citizen of his fundamental rights does not do credit to any state which claims to be following the rule of law. The PIO states he is helpless since the government has not fixed any method to provide rehabilitation to such citizens.”

 

Mr Gandhi then directed the divisional commissioner of the Govt of NCT of Delhi to ensure that details of compensation and rehabilitation to the affected persons who have been displaced in this manner must be made available at least on the website and also to make sure that the appellant receives information about how he could get compensation for his loss.

 

 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

 

Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000734/3446

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/SG-27052009-13.pdf

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000734

                                                                  

Appellant                                            : Sunil Kant

                                                            Delhi-110009

Respondent                                        : The Deputy Secretary (LA/PIO)

                                                            Land & Building Department,

                                                            GNCTD, IP Estate,

                                                            New Delhi

User

Insurer and not TPA to settle health insurance claims

At a high court hearing of a public interest litigation filed by Gaurang Damani, IRDA member (non-life) stated that health insurance draft guidelines accept that the insurer and not TPA will settle or reject health insurance claims

An Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) member (non-life) confirmed that health insurance draft guidelines limit the TPA’s (third party administrator) role to claims processing and not settlement. The insurance company will make direct payments to the hospital and policyholder (not through the TPA). Cheques will have to be written by the insurance company and sent to the hospital (for cashless) and to the policyholder (for reimbursement). It means that cheques cannot be held by TPAs as a float.
 

According to Gaurang Damani, a social activist, who has filed the public interest litigation (PIL), “TPAs are supposed to process claims, instead they’re settling claims. There are no standard guidelines to settle claims and it is left to the whims and fancies of the TPAs who are in fact not entitled to settle claims but are found to be doing so in several cases.”
 

Interestingly, at the hearing IRDA member (non-life) M Ramaprasad admitted that even veterinarians are appointed by the TPAs in addition to ayurvedics and homeopaths to assess cases. There have been cases where specialist doctors were not able to convince the need of specific procedure to TPA doctors, who may be well qualified in their respective field but not in the specialised allopathic stream.
 

Another point which was agreed by IRDA at the hearing was to make the TPA send scanned claims electronically to the insurance company to speed up the process. This is followed by LIC and hence it may well be implemented by TPAs working for general insurance companies.
 

Moneylife had reported that United India and New India Assurance have an incentive clause in the TPA agreement to keep claims ratio within a certain range. This is completely detrimental to the interest of the policyholder whose genuine claims can also be partially paid or rejected just so that the TPA is able to get incentives from the insurance company.
 

Read - United India Insurance doles out incentives to TPAs to reduce claims ratio!
 

At the hearing, Mr Ramaprasad said it was logically not correct for TPAs to be paid incentives. “If we find such instances, we shall take such companies to task.'” He will be taking the issue to the General Insurance Council to decide further steps.
 

Gaurang Damani's petition says that in addition to the incentive clause, there is discrimination in settling insurance claims of individuals and that of corporate clients. Group claims have better negotiation power with insurance companies due to the volume of business.
 

According to Mr Damani, “If mediclaim policies indicated the amount an insured was eligible for specific ailments, it will ensure that they have clarity on which hospitals to go; the hospitals too would know how much they would get.” The advocate for Association of Medical Consultants (AMC) agreed to indicate the amounts for 42 standard ailments. HC has directed the petitioner to send a notice to Association of Hospitals (AOH) and Bombay Nursing Homes Association to get the range of package rates for the 42 standard ailments.
 

The next hearing would be on 12th February. It is understood that the IRDA chairman wants to finalize the health insurance guidelines before he demits the office in mid-February.
 

Read - IRDA comes up with landmark draft health insurance regulations

User

COMMENTS

Arun Kumar

3 years ago

This type of articles and the information give better view to resolve the isuue

Mathai

4 years ago

To Mr. Gaurang Damani:

An aspect to be taken up by Moneylife with IRDA, is to challenge the wide spread practice of hospitals to charge for surgery, doctors fee etc, basis the type of room one takes. If one takes a single room, the cost of surgery and cost of surgeon, anaesthesia etc, is charged much higher than if the patient takes a double room. The difference becomes even more, if one takes a ward, instead of a single room. This has no logic, as the same operation theatre, doctor and team is used and same pre operation preparation area and same post operation recovery area. This is just looting of people wanting some privacy in times of stress.

pk bhor

4 years ago

insurance companies & TPAs are hand in gloves. hence how much the insurer is really going to be benefitted still remains a million dollar question.
PK Bhor

nagesh kini

4 years ago

The Insurance companies appear to have forfeited their legitimate function of settling, instead of processing, the claims to TPAs in all cases and not 'several cases' as reported.
ML should seek clarifications from New India and United India on the Incentive Clause.
At the High Court hearing, the IRDA member was categoric that they do not permit incentives. IRDA's attention needs to be directed to this infraction of conditions.
The TPAs are a law unto themselves!

nagesh kini

4 years ago

The Insurance companies appear to have forfeited their legitimate function of settling, instead of processing, the claims to TPAs in all cases and not 'several cases' as reported.
ML should seek clarifications from New India and United India on the Incentive Clause.
At the High Court hearing, the IRDA member was categoric that they do not permit incentives. IRDA's attention needs to be directed to this infraction of conditions.
The TPAs are a law unto themselves!

Thomas Kuruvilla

4 years ago

Mr. Ramaprasad is correct when he says that most doctors in the TPA's are non allopathic doctors. How can they decide whether a claim is correct or not? It should be made mandatory that when claims are being viewed with suspicion by the TPA's, the case should be referred to the Insurance company which in turn should have well qualified doctors to go through the issue.

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)