Citizens' Issues
MCX-SX elects Thomas Mathew as chairman

Following a preliminary enquiry by CBI, four public interest directors of MCX-SX, including Pillai, had expressed their desire to quit the Board

Following the resignation of GK Pillai, MCX Stock Exchange (MCX-SX) on Friday elected Thomas Mathew T as its new chairman and Dr Ashima Goyal as its vice -chairman. In a release, MCX-SX also dismissed reports claiming that several of its board members are likely to put in their resignations.

 

Earlier in the day, Pillai, the former home secretary, resigned as chairman of MCX-SX, even as the union government and market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) tried to assuage concerns arising out of the bourse coming under the scanner of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

 

The resignation came hours ahead of a scheduled board meeting of MCX-SX, where Mathew, the former chairman of Life Insurance Corp of India (LIC), was elected as new chairman and Dr Goyal, professor at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR) as vice chairperson of the Exchange.

 

SEBI is looking at ways to assuage the concerns of investors, trading members and other stakeholders in MCX-SX, according to senior officials.

 

Meanwhile, Finance Minister P Chidambaram said he hopes that directors of MCX-SX would act in public interest and that there was an orderly resolution of the crisis.

 

Soon after a preliminary enquiry (PE) registered by CBI on Thursday into the grant of licence to the exchange way back in 2008 and the subsequent renewals, Pillai and some other ‘public interest directors’ of MCX-SX had expressed their desire to quit.

 

Surprisingly, the PE has also been registered against SEBI’s former chairman CB Bhave and ex-member KM Abraham, besides MCX-SX promoters Financial Technologies India Ltd (FTIL), and Multi-Commodity Exchange (MCX).

 

In a release, Saurabh Sarkar, managing director and chief executive of MCX-SX said, "The board meeting was as per the schedule and planned one month in advance. Mr GK Pillai, the outgoing chairman, has played a key role in ring-fencing the exchange at a critical juncture and helped bring stability to the exchange. All other directors continue to be on the board."

 

The Exchange also announced that FTIL and MCX have been re-classified from the category of "promoter shareholder" to "public shareholder".

 

MCX-SX management also announced that the ongoing rights issue (in the ratio of 2:1) has received good response and it has received expression of interest from new investors.

 

MCX-SX has come out with a rights issue to reduce its related companies’ stakes. Financial Technologies and MCX hold 5% each in the Exchange while their total stake has to be brought down to 5% in all, according to SEBI guidelines.

 

There are apprehensions that the licence of the Exchange, which is already battling low business volumes due to problems at National Spot Exchange Ltd (NSEL), can be cancelled if CBI probe finds something detrimental.

 

The original promoters of MCX-SX have been issued show-cause notices by regulator SEBI after Commodity markets regulator Forward Markets Commission (FMC) ruled they were not “fit and proper” to run any exchange in the wake of the NSEL fallout.

 

The exchange was initially granted permission for only a limited segment of currency derivatives in 2008, on the condition its licence would require approval every year.

 

The PE was registered into the MCX-SX licence matter on a day when CBI carried out raids at various premises of NSEL.

User

Kejriwal says media 'sold out' to Narendra Modi

Kicking off a fresh controversy, AAP leader Kejriwal alleged that 'heavy amounts' have been paid to promote Narendra Modi

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal has accused the 'whole' media of being 'sold out' to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)'s prime ministerial candidate and Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi. Kejriwal also threatened to send media people to jail after an inquiry into the issue if AAP comes to power.

 

“The whole media is sold out this time, it is a big conspiracy, a huge political controversy. If our government comes to power, then we will set up an inquiry into this. And along with the media people, all will be sent to jail,” he said, hitting out at the media for focusing on his security deployment.

 

Kicking off a fresh controversy, Kejriwal alleged that 'heavy amounts' have been paid to promote BJP’s prime ministerial nominee Narendra Modi.

 

But he later denied having made the accusations against the media after his remarks came under attack from the Congress, BJP and CPI.

 

“Since the last one year, we have been told that Modi is here, Modi is there. Since one year, Modi has also been saying that. Even some TV channels have been saying that ‘Ram Rajya’ has come and corruption has vanished....Why did they do it? Because money has been paid to TV channels. Heavy amounts have been paid to promote Modi,” Kejriwal alleged in a video aired by a TV channel.

 

“Around 800 farmers have committed suicide in Gujarat in the past 10 years, but none of the channels showed it,” he alleged and added that farmers have sold their land to a company for just “one rupee but even this has not been shown by any channel”.

 

However, as the video went viral, the AAP leader denied making the remarks.

 

“I didn’t say that. I didn’t say anything. How can I be upset with you (media),” he said.

User

COMMENTS

sivaraman

3 years ago

Those who are watching the different channel on TV News can confirm the validity of the accusation.Sad to say it is street
fight against each other including
anchor. .News are far away from reality insome of electronic media.Sad for democracy

IRDA’s Rs275 crore refund order to SBI Life proves botched product approval process

IRDA has asked SBI Life to refund Rs275 crore for collecting premium upfront on a policy, which had two premium payment terms. But why did IRDA approve this product which was cleverly designed to earn hefty commission for SBI?

 

The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) has ordered SBI Life to refund Rs275.29 crore to the policy holders as the money was collected from them in violation of norms.
 

The product had two premium payment term (PPT).  Yet, in nearly 95% of the policies sold, SBI Life had collected the second year premium for its policy Dhanaraksha Plus Limited Premium Paying Term in the first year itself. What is worse, this policy was sold to those who availed of home loans from SBI and its associate banks during the period 2008-2011. The policy was intended to cover the outstanding loan in case of death of the policyholder during the term of the loan. As every one who has taken a mortgage in recent times knows, there is also an element of indirect coercion to take these policies to secure the borrowing.
 

SBI Life also had a single premium version of the product, but it did not provide an informed choice to the buyer. The reasons were simple. The single premium policy earned only 2% commission for intermediaries, which in this case was mainly SBI and its associate banks. The two PPT policy earned hefty 40% of the first year premium as commission and 7.5% of the second year premium as commission to banks which sold the policy. Clearly, the two PPT policy was bound to be much more expensive than the single premium policy if the commission levels have such huge difference.
 

It can be concluded that SBI and its associated banks did not act in best of customer interest by offering a cheaper option. SBI Life crafted a product with two PPT which could not have been for customer convenience. It would have been justified if the PPT was for two-thirds or at least half of the loan repayment period. In that case, there is respite to the customer in having flexibility to pay premium over a period of time. But, what is the advantage of two PPT versus single premium for customer? It is disadvantageous as the premium paid over two years would be higher than single premium due to inbuilt humongous difference in commission levels.
 

So, why did IRDA permit the two PPT toxic product to be launched at all? Did the regulator fail to anticipate that the product was structured to be mis-sold and is completely against customer interest? While IRDA may seem to have helped investors by asking for the premium to be refunded, this is a fit case for holding the regulator itself accountable. In fact this would also be a fit case for class action, both against SBI Life as well as the regulator. 
 

Did IRDA expect that the consumers can easily find out that single premium option was available? Approving a toxic product can remind one of ULIPs before September 2013 which even had high upfront charges of up to 70% and mind-boggling surrender charges.
 

Getting a loan application approved itself is a task and the customer is at mercy of the bank which ensures that the customer accepts whatever loan and property insurance is offered. Any resentment from the consumer can even be deal breaker for loan application. It can be seen from the fact that 93% of second year premiums were received in advance along with first year premiums in the year 2008-09, 94% in the year 2009-10 and 97% in 2010-11. Thus the premium collected is more on lines of a single premium than two yearly regular premiums against the approved File and Use features.
 

Making the two PPT product work as single premium by taking the second year premium upfront is a violation of approved File and Use features, but the insurer may argue that paying second year premium in advance was allowed by IRDA till 2013. But, SBI Life cannot be exonerated from its culpability to offer toxic insurance product; it casts a shadow over other life insurance products offered by the insurer.
 

IRDA order states the following issues (a) Dhanaraksha Plus Limited Premium Paying Term product was sold as single premium policy in violation of approved File and Use features, (b) Paying excess commission to Corporate Agents over and above the eligible 2% commission they would have been otherwise eligible had the single premium version of the policy been offered. (c) No informed choice given to the members of these group insurance policies as envisaged under Regulation 3(2) and 3(3) of IRDA (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002. Thus it is concluded that these violations were detrimental to the interests of members of group insurance schemes of the concerned master policyholders.
 

SBI Life will be appealing against the IRDA order as per the recourse available to them.

 

User

COMMENTS

kkdammala

3 years ago

First of all let us appreciate IRDA for this kind of bold step.
Here the plan is sold by the banks and not the SBI Life Insurance itself. Instead of penalizing the Insurance Company. As per the IRDA the Insurance company is authorized to collect the premium of 2nd year in advance. The option of single and 2 premium is available to the customer, its customer's choice to take either of it, But the banks might have sold only the 2 year plan only to get high commission, Hence the banks (or corporate agents)are responsible for any wrong selling of the product, then why penalize the Life Insurance leaving the High commission earners and mis-selling agents. The Present action by IRDA is only a temporary solution, what about the permanent solution to this kind of issues? is cancelling the licence of the banks is the only answer? never not at all.

REPLY

Suresh Ramasubramanian

In Reply to kkdammala 3 years ago

The seller in this case is SBI Life. They are responsible for any act of commission or ommission by their agents.

Krish

3 years ago

It goes to say that even public sector undertakings including big banks are not exceptional in looting the public knowing that they are in need of loan. It is not about the refund to the policy holders, all the officials involved including the CEO should be punished for resorting to such unethical practice. What a shame that most revered bank in India doing such blood sucking practices in violation of its principles and customer rights.

IRDA should do one more favor as it is proven that every bank which got insurance license are resorting to impose high commission policies when customers are approaching the bank to seek loan. Whether it is a education loan, home loan, auto loan, personal loan or even for locker, they are forcing customers to buy an insurance policy.

It is high time to ban insurance licenses given to banks and bank premises should never be used to solicit insurance business from the customers. The current IRDA action is only a temorary solution and root cause is not addressed.

Nilesh KAMERKAR

3 years ago

25% - 40% commission to life insurance agents and nobody calls it 'anti policy holder'

Whereas 2.25% commission becomes anti investor for selling Mutual funds?

KUSHAL JAIN

3 years ago

SBI LIFE'S license should be cancelled as they are miss leading its clients.The clients should get interest on premium paid in advance.

SBI LIFE are very much aware of IRDA policies and if they voilate it purposely means they have taken IRDA for granted. And if IRDA relaxes these rules & penalties than other insurance companies will also follow similar practice.

suda bhanu prasad

3 years ago

irda should allow individual agents to sell multiple insurance company products.

Suresh Ramasubramanian

3 years ago

First, it is quite ironic to see a sbi life ad just below this article's headline on your main page :)

Also - I was sold this exact same policy with 2 years premium collected in advance as a single premium, in conjunction with my home loan in 2010.

I saw a note in 2012 where sbi life was penalized 6 lakhs by IRDA for offering this product. I approached their ombudsman requesting a refund, which they denied citing that "this was a technical decision by IRDA, it is a good policy and they decline to refund it"

Now I am going to approach them again on the same subject. Let us see how this goes on ..

REPLY

raj

In Reply to Suresh Ramasubramanian 3 years ago

Please do so & keep us updated.

Suresh Ramasubramanian

In Reply to raj 3 years ago

I sent a letter to the SBI life people asking for a refund, and then marked a copy to the insurance ombudsman as it was a continuation of a year old complaint. The ombudsman sent me a letter today morning saying that "We would like to inform you that this forum is a quasi judicial authority constituted under the RPG rules 1998 with defined mandate. As per these rules, the subject matter of your complaint viz: alleged missale and request for cancellation of policy and refund of amount paid, do not come under the purview of insurance ombudsman"

They also suggested that as IRDA has passed an order to refund the excess commission I can wait for the timeframe defined in the order, for SBI Life to refund me the excess commission.

I thought the ombudsman office was where complaints on misselling were to be directed?

sathyacumaran

In Reply to Suresh Ramasubramanian 3 years ago

sathya cumaran
thanks to moneylife in bring out all the allegations of capital market related scandals if my case is not handled by you we would like to bring the india biggest scam of stock market where the officicals of sebi bse nse are main culprits apart from stock brokers who are pron for cheating would be exposed and that would be end of india capital market scenario and no FII would be interested in indian capital market would be exposed this would be an disgrace for new govt and our country but we have no other option to expose as we have the records of all the credentials of all the officials past and preaent would be released from our platform where there would not be any threat for our life

sathyacumaran

In Reply to Suresh Ramasubramanian 3 years ago

sathya cumaran
thanks to moneylife in bring out all the allegations of capital market related scandals if my case is not handled by you we would like to bring the india biggest scam of stock market where the officicals of sebi bse nse are main culprits apart from stock brokers who are pron for cheating would be exposed and that would be end of india capital market scenario and no FII would be interested in indian capital market would be exposed this would be an disgrace for new govt and our country but we have no other option to expose as we have the records of all the credentials of all the officials past and preaent would be released from our platform where there would not be any threat for our life

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)