TVS Capital Funds appoints G Ravishankar as executive director & CFO

Ravishankar, with more than 20 years of experience, was till most recently the CFO and then the MD and the CEO of Geometric Ltd

TVS Capital Funds Ltd, the asset manager of TVS Shriram Growth Fund, a Rs 600 crore mid-cap growth fund, has expanded its leadership team with the induction of G Ravishankar. Ravishankar joins the team as an executive director & CFO.

Ravishankar, with more than 20 years of experience, was till most recently the CFO and then the MD and CEO of Geometric Ltd, an engineering services company. At Geometric, he played a crucial role in turning around the company.  Prior to joining Geometric, Ravishankar has held various positions in General Electric India (GE) for about 14 years, where his last position was as the CFO of GE Healthcare, South Asia. He was with GE's Financial businesses earlier, where he culminated his tenure as the vice president and head of risk for their consumer finance wing.

Ravishankar is a chartered and cost accountant with bachelor's degree in chemistry.

About his joining TVS Capital Funds, Ravishankar said, "Private equity is the next logical step to build my career as it is a platform to make an impact professionally and contribute to India's entrepreneurial growth story. TVS Capital Funds' mission of "empowering nextgen entrepreneurs" while giving superior returns for investors is something that I found very attractive. I look forward to helping the firm create the top private equity AMC in India.  It will be a privilege to work with its marquee investors, growing portfolio companies, the entrepreneurial management team and its eminent board and advisory members."

D Sundaram, vice chairman and MD of TVS Capital Funds said, "We are delighted to have Ravishankar joining us as Executive Director & CFO. With his experience he will add tremendous value to our organization's capabilities. We wish him all the best".


Govt asks SBI to submit report on Moody’s downgrade

Global ratings agency Moody's on Tuesday downgraded its rating of SBI's financial strength by one notch to 'D+' on account of the lender's low Tier-I capital ratio and deteriorating asset quality

New Delhi: The government has asked State Bank of India (SBI) to explain the reasons behind the downgrade by global ratings firm Moody's, reports PTI quoting the bank's chairman, Pratip Chaudhuri.

"The government has asked us to give report on reasons for the downgrade," Mr Chaudhuri told private news channel CNBC-TV18 in an interview.

Global ratings agency Moody's on Tuesday downgraded its rating of SBI's financial strength by one notch to 'D+' on account of the lender's low Tier-I capital ratio and deteriorating asset quality.

"It is a downgrade of a small segment of the bank's debt," Mr Chaudhuri said, adding SBI's overall rating is still a notch above sovereign rating.

Mr Chaudhuri also said the State Bank of India's (SBI) rights issue will restore the bank's rating.

"We will get capital from government by December or March next year," he said, adding, "...expect SBI's capital adequacy to be above 9% by March 2012."

As per Moody's, a 'D' rating suggests "modest intrinsic financial strength, potentially requiring some outside support at times", while a 'C' rating denotes "adequate intrinsic financial strength".

Moody's cited a likely rise in the bank's non-performing assets in the near future as one of the reasons for the downgrade.

The stock continued to be an underperformer in today's trade, as well, and was down 2.38% to Rs1,744.20 on the BSE in late morning trade, after hitting a fresh 52-week low of Rs1,731.40 earlier.



R Balakrishnan

6 years ago

This has to be a joke! How can someone explain a third party action? In any case, SBI cannot hope for a better rating simply by bringing additional capital. Its bad loans and its poor banking practices are a trait that will not vanish. Every departing chairman cooks up profits and every incoming one makes the books look bad.

IRDA asks insurers not to reject health insurance on a routine basis, but don’t pin much hope on this directive

IRDA has asked insurance firms to pay claims, even if they are submitted late due to genuine reasons. The intention is noble, but don’t lose sight of the ground realities of claims rejection, and the absence of penalty for insurers

The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) circular to life and non-life companies asking them not to reject claims on technical grounds of delay in filing may come as a relief to policyholders. But keep this fact in mind —the primary target for this circular is mediclaim insurers, some of whom have stringent filing deadlines. There have been a number of complaints to IRDA of rejection of claims that are genuine. Various media reports have been published that indicate that insurance companies can't refuse a claim, even if the request comes in late. Obviously, these articles may make readers feel that all the problems of stringent deadlines imposed by mediclaim insurers will be solved. However, if you make a late filing of your claim, you'll be doing so at your own risk.

Some insurance companies have been stringent about hospitalisation intimation, and claims filing, by imposing unrealistic deadlines. These 'tight' norms have been formulated under the garb of protection against mediclaim 'fraud'. On the other hand, insurers don't have any deadline for payment of claims. The customer is the one who gets hit by such a one-sided contract.

Genuine customers who have been paying premiums consistently every year for decades, have also been at the receiving end with outright claims rejection.

has reported on numerous such cases. Claims have sometimes been tossed around in different offices of an insurance company for almost six months—in some cases, customers only end up getting the thumbs-down to their request.

If the policyholder believes that the IRDA circular will change the ground reality, it's time he does a rethink. For starters, there is no penalty for the insurance company if claims are rejected on a mechanical basis on the grounds of late filing. There is also no incentive for the higher authorities in insurance companies to accept genuine claims. On the contrary, the incentive is for some TPAs (Third Party Administrators) and insurers to keep the claims ratio low, and let the insured approach the Ombudsman or a consumer court.
This is possible only if customers are capable of taking the fight to the next level. But most of the insured don't do it—either because they cannot physically handle extensive litigation, or because they don't have the financial wherewithal for the battle—and they let go of the fight. Those who want to fight have to spend one to three years to get any result, favourable or otherwise. This end-result may be achieved after a huge gap of two to four years from the initial filing of the claim. In such cases, where the onus is clearly on the insured, the insurance company stands to benefit.

The Insurance Ombudsman has been helpless in these cases till now, as the timelines are specified in the insurance policy document in fine print-often overlooked by the policyholder or glossed over by the insurance agent. Will the IRDA circular give the Ombudsman the authority to overturn the insurance contract's wordings? This is something that can be inferred only over a period of time.

Even though the problems detailed above may not applicable to all insurers, claim-filers have to be aware of these stipulations, rather than be sorry later. Justice may not be served easily—and, as the dictum goes, justice delayed is justice denied—especially in the case of insurance claims. Of course, redressal may eventually come about, but it may take many years before you get it. Therefore, it's better that you file your mediclaim hospitalisation intimation and claims on time, rather than expecting speedy redressal because of the IRDA diktat. Caveat emptor should be the guiding policy—and mediclaim is certainly not a contract you can experiment with.




5 years ago

I’ll be back soon on your site again so please continue sharing your great tips.

Nagesh Kini FCA

6 years ago

First and foremost the TPAs should be closed down en masse. They resort to fiddling with the money that the collect from the insurance companies - they part with small sums to the hospitals and insured individuals and corporates. They are a law unto themselves They reject claims, the doctors that they hire to scrutinize the claims are unqualified or homoes, unnani or ayurveds not conversant with the ailments and procedures. They are a source of harassment plain and simple. .


6 years ago

This comment isnt related to the post but this being the latest article ive posted here

Nirmal Kotecha is back he is using the Onelife Capital advisors ipo as a backdoor entry moneylife pls warn your readers
the fraudster might take onelife all the way to 1000 before he dumps it

its priced at 100 rs

Harish Shah

6 years ago

Those who have filed the claim late let them be in the que. There are hundreds of claims whose claim intimation was sent before 24 hrs. and claim submitted within 7 days from the date of discharge from the hospital. Still their claims are made non payable by inefficient T.P.A. who claims not have received intimation or document as per clause in the policy. How much of a strain and litigation a person has to do to get the claim passed.


6 years ago

intimation in24 hours,file submissin in 7 days otherwise rejection or panelty.why company not bound for claim settlement penelaty also for company .irda also make rule for similar intimation time & file submission.


6 years ago

I am really grateful to moneylife and to Raj Pradhan who has done a very detailed job. I had written to them about problems that I had with my insurer, Apollo Munich and he went beyond the bounds to help me with right advice. Apollo Munich is now willing to process my claim and also reconsider their network hospitals as the hospital authority in Raheja - Fortis had done a wrong diagnosis initially resulting in my claim being rejected for cashless and despite the CMO ratifying the report, it was not considered. Now it is...


6 years ago

My comment is not directly related to the above article. But I am compelled to post a comment here. A general insurance company, a government of India undertaking, is giving legitimacy to Ponzi Company. Three days ago Moneylife published an article about this ponzi company. Please see the link:

How this has happened? Will the authorities explain?



In Reply to LOL 6 years ago

National Insurance Company needs to clarify

Kishore N

In Reply to P 6 years ago

I request MONEY LIFE to take up this issue with National Insurance company.

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



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)