Separate from insurer premium and claims obligations
Accounting and finance experience
27 years
Service accounts, expense management, control and CFO roles
A considered point of view.
A financial explanation should survive the journey from the underlying record to the decision. If its meaning changes along the way, a polished total only makes the misunderstanding easier to approve.
Selected leadership work / 01
2020: correcting the expense that the consolidation counted twice
As financial controller, I approved a management paper showing ₹18 crore of defined support expense.
In 2020 I approved an expense presentation that added a ₹9 crore central cost pool to the same ₹9 crore after allocation to operating centres. The resulting ₹18 crore total counted the defined expense twice. Correcting it did not create a ₹9 crore cash saving; it restored the account we should have presented. I withdrew the paper and led a review across twenty-four centres before the revised figures returned to management. The error was in my own control responsibility, and I had to explain why a more attractive corrected total was still not an operating achievement.
I am now CFO of Zerqlavi Life Assurance in Aizawl. Thirty finance colleagues work through four leads within ₹5.2 crore annual function expense. The insurer has 590 employees and twenty-five branches. Its FY 2025–26 total premium is ₹1,120 crore, comprising new-business and renewal receipts reported on their defined premium basis; I do not present that number as profit or unrestricted cash. CEO Dinesh Qerqavi owns the enterprise recommendation, and chief actuary Miriam Delqvashi owns actuarial estimates and assessments. My responsibility is to connect the financial records, those professional inputs and the explanation directors receive without implying that reconciliation gives finance authority over every underlying judgement.
The same discipline shaped two later decisions. A smaller claims-payment total needed examination beside the change in obligations, rather than a quick declaration that claims cost had improved. A digital administration proposal needed to separate released staff capacity from expense that could actually be removed or avoided. Eighteen redeployed colleagues remained on the payroll; their useful new work was not a cash saving. I would consider an insurance CFO mandate where financial challenge can alter an investment recommendation before approval. I am also preparing for a possible outside contribution, with no previous statutory seat and no claim that a senior finance title settles appointment eligibility. The thread through my work is a willingness to explain why an encouraging number may answer a narrower question than the board has been asked to decide.
One expense had appeared twice
Corrected my own consolidated presentation without calling the correction a cash saving.
Claims paid did not describe the whole movement
Connected a selected payment account to the opening and closing obligation.
Released capacity still had an employment cost
Separated redeployment, avoided hiring and continuing programme expense.
Current focus
Financial explanations that preserve their scope through consolidation, actuarial reconciliation and investment review.
Conversations I welcome
A life-insurance CFO mandate and one carefully assessed outside-board contribution after preparation.
The leadership record
Trusted with consequential decisions.
Formation
Bachelor of CommerceQerqleni Commerce College · 1999
Lalrin preserved the service argument while correcting the cash claim. We approved the programme knowing what redeployment would and would not change.
Dinesh QerqaviFictional CEO, Zerqlavi Life AssuranceThe full record ↗
Contact
A life-insurance CFO mandate and one carefully assessed outside-board contribution after preparation.
