The denominator changed the efficiency story
Service expense of ₹4.2 crore then ₹4.32 crore was compared with 36,000 then 48,000 policy-years and 84,000 then 86,000 covered life-years. The two views answered different questions.
Chief Financial Officer
India
Practice / Perspective
| No. | The idea | Subject / reading |
|---|---|---|
| 01 | An efficiency claim begins with the unit you choose | Health-insurance service economics 6 min read |
| 02 | The price concession can carry a financing business inside it | Commercial terms and funding 6 min read |
| 03 | The owner's approval is a funding stage, not a bank balance | Funding and commercial commitments 6 min read |

The practitioner
I put the lower cost-per-policy number in the opening slide. It seemed to show that our service organisation had handled growth more efficiently. The numerator had risen from ₹4.2 crore to ₹4.32 crore, while policy-years had risen from 36,000 to 48,000. The resulting unit cost fell from roughly ₹1,167 to ₹900. Operations then asked me to look at the people covered. Covered life-years had moved from 84,000 to 86,000, leaving that unit cost close to ₹500 in both periods. The mix of family and individual contracts had changed. I had chosen a real number and given it too broad a meaning.
Open to Board appointments
Start a conversationBeyond the page
Imtiaz gave us a smaller first commitment we could assess, rather than treating shareholder approval as though the whole contribution had already arrived. The opportunity cost remained in the paper alongside the funding condition.
A first external board role where directors want practical finance judgement about service economics, with appropriate preparation and employer consent.