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".
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.
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.
Moneylife 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.