In order to provide customised life insurance solutions to customers via the bank’s network, Max New York Life Insurance and Axis Bank have signed a 10-year bancassurance relationship
Max New York Life Insurance (MNYL), the seventh-largest life insurance company in India and the third-largest Indian private bank, Axis Bank, have signed a 10-year strategic bancassurance relationship to provide customised life insurance solutions to customers via the bank’s network.
“We are confident of making this bancassurance partnership with Axis Bank a great success. Our partnership with Axis Bank—one of the most admired banks with a strong countrywide distribution, is another step towards creating a top-of-the-rung balanced multi-channel distribution,” Analjit Singh, chairman, Max New York Life Insurance, said.
“Having built a strong customer-centric franchise, we believe that our new bancassurance tie-up with a trusted brand like Max New York Life Insurance will enhance our product bouquet,’’ said Shikha Sharma, managing director & chief executive officer, Axis Bank.
The bancassurance tie-up will help Max New York Life Insurance business to strengthen its distribution while Axis Bank will enhance its insurance product bouquet.
Operations will begin from today. It will also provide life insurance solutions to bank customers in 650 cities through more than 1,000 Axis Bank branches and intends to serve 20 lakh customers in five years.
“We also believe, given India's geographical diversity and low life insurance penetration level, multi-channel distribution is the most effective way to connect with new customers,” Mr Singh said.
Max New York Life already has a tie-up with 54 other banks which include Yes Bank and Barclays Finance. According to Rajesh Sud, managing director of Max New York Life Insurance, the company is selling 65% of its insurance products through its own distribution agencies while only 35% of its insurance is sold through other agencies like banks.
In an interaction with NGOs working for senior citizens, Susan B Somers, General Secretary of the International Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse (INPEA) highlighted financial issues prevalent in the US and how they have been dealt with Moneylife Digital team
Susan B Somers, General Secretary of the International Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, Inc (INPEA) highlighted some financial issues that the elderly face in an interaction with other NGOs working for senior citizens. The interaction was organised by Silver Innings and Moneylife Foundation.
“There is a need to raise financial awareness among senior citizens, especially women. They do not understand wills, tax issues and transfers. This leaves them completely vulnerable to financial issues,” said Somers who is also United Nations NGO Coordinator for INPEA. She is associated with the Somers Law Firm, New York.
Highlighting instances of financial exploitation in the United States, she said, “There have been various cases of financial exploitation of the elderly like fraudulent selling of expensive security systems under the pretext of safety or charging exorbitant fees for simple day-to-day jobs like repairing a car.”
Among other financial exploitation cases were repeated mis-selling of insurance policies to the elderly. “There were insurance agents or brokers, who convinced the elderly to flip their current insurance policy with another one, stating that the existing was no more useful to them. In reality, every time the elderly person changed his insurance policy the broker earned a commission. It was in the benefit of the broker and the not the elderly person,” stated Ms Somers.
While the elderly are highly susceptible and gullible to financial exploitation at the hands of their own family members and relatives, certain groups also reportedly took advantage of the same. “There was a rampant selling of living trusts which promised wealth protection for the elderly from the Government, from paying taxes, from family and relatives. This was in the form of a document. They charged a huge amount of fees for this document. Most times, one did not even need such a protection,” Ms Somers said.
On being asked on what steps have been taken or should be taken to address such issues which are equally applicable to Indian senior citizens, she said, “The government should issue information. To take reverse mortgage as an example, the government should provide information stating these are the good points about the product and these are the bad points of the product, this helps the senior citizen take an informed decision.”
“Another significant step taken in the US was a law stating a cooling-in period of three days. If the seller or agent approaches the elderly, he cannot be forced to sign or agree to buy the product or service right away, a cooling-in period of three days has to be practised. This avoids the elderly from taking any hasty decision while under pressure,” she added.
Justice DK Deshmukh of the Special Court—for the third time—has ordered sale of eight flats belonging to Harshad Mehta and his family in ‘Madhuli’ at Mumbai
For the third time since the saga began in 1992, the Special Court set up to try matters relating to the securities scam has asked the Custodian to initiate the process of selling eight out of nine flats belonging to Harshad Mehta at 'Madhuli'. This was once among the most sought-after addresses in Mumbai.
Spread over two floors and 10,400 sq ft, these interconnected flats at Madhuli Co-operative Society occupied by the extended Mehta family then spelt the ultimate in aspiration and achievement for investors and speculators in India’s recently liberalised economy. The property included a billiards room, a putting green and a mini theatre… things that were unheard of in 1992. The Mehtas owned five flats on the third floor and three flats on the fourth floor which were occupied by four brothers and their families and their mother.
The sale of the flats was first ordered in October 2003 after which the case has seen incredible twists and turns with multiple appeals and stay orders before being reverted to Justice DK Deshmukh's court. In an extremely detailed, 140-page order issued on 30th April, which is repeatedly underlined to highlight various aspects, the learned judge has spelt out the basis of his decision. It remains to be seen if this finally settles the issue or will Ashwin Mehta, the late Harshad Mehta's brother, continue his fight to retain the family home. It may be recalled that Harshad Mehta, once described as the Big Bull, died of a heart attack in December 2001 while still facing charges of having diverted several hundred crores of rupees from banks to the capital market. His brothers, Ashwin and Sudhir Mehta, are co-accused in many cases. Over the past 18 years, they have been embroiled in never-ending and messy litigation which includes some absurd tax claims by the government.
Justice DK Deshmukh says:”Because these properties are attached properties and as per the judgement of the Supreme Court in Jyoti Mehta's case, the Custodian is entitled to receive income from the attached properties and because the notified persons are occupying those properties, the Custodian is not getting any income from these properties, the Custodian shall initiate the process of sale immediately and complete it as soon as possible and submit a report to the Court."
The Special Court order also says that all the notified parties and entities operated in tandem with Harshad Mehta in conducting the securities transactions as members of one family constituting a group. Since the various notified parties in the petition are members of the Harshad Mehta group, the properties of each notified party and entity can be sold for discharge of the liabilities of Harshad Mehta, the court order said.
Last year in July, the Supreme Court had ordered that the sale of these eight flats owned by Harshad Mehta’s family shall be confirmed by the Special Court.
Members of the Mehta family had been trying to stall the auction of ‘Madhuli’ by filing various litigations. However, all of them, after reaching the apex court, have come back to the Special Court. Earlier in January, the Special Court had even said that the Mehta family was adopting delaying tactics to stall the sale of these eight flats.
Each notified member of the Mehta family had said that since their property or share in the said property is not funded by Harshad Mehta or brought before the securities scam, it should not be attached or termed as ‘benamidar’ of Harshad Mehta by the Custodian.
Rejecting these arguments at the outset, the Special Court said:"In our opinion, the attachment of all the properties in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Special Act is automatic. The said sub-section does not provide for any qualification that the properties which are liable to be attached should relate to the illegal securities transactions in respect of which the Act was enacted."
The Court said that it came to the conclusion that Harshad S Mehta had funded all the residential properties and they could therefore be disposed of accordingly. In this regard, the Court said, it relied on the report of the auditors Vyas and Vyas, who had considered the flow of funds from Harshad Mehta to various notified parties. “This was the fact that the funds had specifically been transferred for purchase of the properties just before the purchase. There was also a huge amount outstanding in the accounts of the notified parties to Harshad Mehta on 1-4-1990 and 1-4-1991,” the Court said.
An interesting aspect of the judgement is the detailed recording of various charges made by Harshad Mehta's widow Jyoti Mehta, while challenging Justice DK Deshmukh's earlier order in the Supreme Court. Some of Jyoti Mehta's arguments were that the judge had "misread" and "misconstrued" the Supreme Court directions in the Ashwin Mehta case, that the judge had "committed a serious illegality in so far as he relied upon the Janakiraman Reports and other reports which are wholly inadmissible as evidence" and that the judge had "reproduced large amounts of the Custodians' report" raising the question "as to whether he took into account the arguments of the appellants in the case". The rejection of each of these contentions forms a big chunk of the report.
The Mehta property, at its current market price (about Rs40,000 per sq ft), could fetch around Rs42 crore. According to the Supreme Court ruling, a part of the proceeds from the sale would be used to pay off income tax, banks and other debts of Harshad Mehta.