Thank you very much. We will now begin t he question and answer session. The first question is from the line of Swarnabha Mukherjee from B&K Securities. Please go ahead.
STARHEALTH · FY2026 Q3
Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited analyst Q&A
Hi, sir. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity and congrats on a good set of numbers. I have three questions. First of all, I just wanted to understand the trajectory of earned premium growth because I think last year from 3Q onwards, you had started increasing the price across products and by January, you had repriced 65% of the portfolio. However, I think on an earned premium basis, the growth is still lower than what our top -line growth is. So, I just wanted to understand when do we see that last year's price hike in the earned premium growth. So, that is the first one. Second is on the fresh business growth and I think com mendable numbers. I just wanted to understand the commission for this fresh business, how it will be placed vis -à- vis renewal business. So, what I also noticed is that net commissions have remained stable despite the fresh growth, but DAC has come up in the IFRS. So, I just wanted to understand how should I read this or whether we are doing a lesser proportion of long-term products now if you put some light. Thirdly, in terms of agency, I think you have reported 6% fresh NOP growth while premium growth is 3 5%. So, is this led by higher -ticket-size products? What is happening? If you can put some light on this. Yes, sir. This is my question.
Yes, thanks a lot. Thanks a lot for those questions and thanks for your good wishes. So, see, the NEP growth is a factor of multiple things. One is on the group side, as you know, we have recalibrated our business strategy and t hat is also reflecting on the N EP growth. On the retail side of things, while we are on a conservative 1 /365 accounting and as a result of which the NEP growth flows into the books over a period of time. But if you look at the way the growth is coming in terms of top -line and also renewal retention, N EP growth will improve in the coming quarters and I am sure that will be demonstrated. On the commission side, on fresh, we are paying commissions. Our long -term business has increased and we have spoken in the past, customers are preferring long-term plans and which we are quite happy to offer. For the simple reason, I believe it is a win-win for all stakeholders. So, commissions are paid to agents and distributors on long -term plans depending on certain business outcomes that they have to deliver. So, as you have rightly mentioned, despite significant growth in business, our net commissions have remained stable and under the IFRS accounting, the deferred acquisition cost is one of the main contributors which helps us to achieve this. Finally, on the 6% NOP growth, I think we have been focusing on profitable growth. Growth with profit has been our agenda. Certain markets we have taken some calibration, but this is on a YTD basis, if you look at our growth for quarter 3, it is significantly higher. So, I think we are delivering more than 16% growth in volume in quarter 3. So, things are improving on the NOP as well.
Okay, sir. Very useful. Just one last follow-up. So, in the presentation, the sum-assured number which you have provided, average sum -assured, last quarter it was around Rs. 17 lakhs. That has come down to around Rs. 12 lakhs for nine months. This is because we are now excluding a group from the calculation. Is my understanding correct?
Yes, the group is excluded. Correct.
Okay, understood. Thank you so much, sir, and all the best.
Thank you. We have the nex t question from the line of Prayesh Jain from Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited. Please go ahead.
Yes, hi. Good morning, everyone. Congrats on a great set of numbers. Firstly, on the loss ratio, how much of the improvement would you attribute to the fact that we have a very strong fresh growth and probably that kind of comes in the impact or probably the loss ratio on that kind of increases going ahead. B ut what I a m basically trying to figure out is, how is the loss ratio panning out in the renewal book? What is the trajectory there? Because the fresh contribution has gone up and that could have played a part in reducing the loss ratio. So, is the loss ratio kind of coming down also on the renewal book, is my question.
Yes, hi, Prayesh. Yes, the impact of price changes last year is clearly showing and we are seeing a reduction in the loss ratio of our renewal book as well. Of course, increasing of fresh will also have a role in terms of bringing down the loss ratio, but that will play out over a period of time because the fresh growth has gone up significantly in this quarter.
Could you give some numbers on your, say, a three-year book loss ratio or what would be the three-year loss ratio compared to, say, a year back and today?
Prayesh, I think these things we can have it offline. You can come and meet us.
Got that. Second question was, attention to what Swarnabha asked earlier on the commission bit. There is a stark improvement on the commission ratios given that fresh growth was so strong. What really kind of played into it to bring down the commission ratios into that quantum?
So, Prayesh, when you talk about commission ratio, what you are looking at IGAAP numbers, the gross commission to GWP. So, if you see, for quarter two, it is 17.1% and for quarter three also, it is 17% . So, it is consistent. You know, the reduction that we had done on the senior citizen that is playing out, vis-à-vis which is getting offset with the long-term business that we are writing. Long-term business, a large part of it still is on 1/N basis. So, it does not impact the commission ratios.
Okay and the last question is on, again, the regulations where now there is so much discussion on commission bit, that commission has to be brought down in the system. And the other part is the healthcare system, right? What are the developments on both the fronts with respect to negotiations with hospitals or anything that you can share on what are the developments both on the commission front as well as what the regulator is talking about commission front as well as the healthcare regulator front?
Yes. So, see, Prayesh that is a good question on both on the commission front and on the expenses of management. I think there is, we expect that the regulator may be reviewing this. This is what we have been also hearing. We await for some final clarity on that. But at a macro level, I think in the larger interest of the consumers, expenses of management have to be adhered to and we believe that it has to be implemented very, very strictly. This is something that is definitely desira ble for the industry performance on a sustainable basis. So, if any reduction in expense of management is articulated by the regulator, obviously, we will be prepared for it. As far as the hospital negotiations are concerned, this is an ongoing process. We are seeing good interaction with hospitals with multiple partners like AHPI and all of that. We are talking to all of them. We are meeting them. We are also able to see some acceptance of, you know, from their side to find a solution which is a win-win for all of us. There is a lot of work going on at the GI council level, as you know, in terms of common empanelment of hospitals and so on. So, I think in the next few months and years, we should see some good movement in this area. Prayesh Jain Got that. Thank you so much. I wish you all the best.
Thank you. We have the next question from t he line of Avinash Singh from Emkay Global. Please go ahead.
Yes, hi. Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity. Good set of numbers. Anand, a question I will stick to the one particularly on the claims ratio side. Certainly, there is an improvement if we see sequentially on a YoY basis. But if we look at more on the nine -month basis and the retail claims ratio, because a significant portion of improvement has come from group. Now, on the retail side, I mean, versus 69.6 % of last nine months to this nine -month 69.4 %. T he improvement is there, but it is kind of a minimal and it is on the back of also the price hike has been taken, a lot of remedial exercise were taken. So, the question is that, if we were to look, say, over maybe two, three years kind of a thing, where maybe a desirable number for you on the claim side would be even lower from here. So, how do you see this panning out? Given that apparently medical inflation has started to bit of a cool down in recent quarters. You have taken the price hike and remedial action, and you also have a very impressive fresh growth and overall growth. Yet, you know, the claims ratio improvement over these nine months YoY basis on retail side is still a 20 basis point. So, how do you see the journey over next two, three years and where would you see or your desire to settle this claims ratio piece? Thanks.
Yes, thanks, Avinash. So, see, I think, on the retail claim ratio, you have to, I mean, obviously, you understand equally well, the price divisions that we have taken and all the underwriting changes that we have made, these things to flow into the loss ratio and the earned premium takes 18 to 24 months. So, we are still not even 12 months done. I think, more importantly, you have to look at the quarter three claim ratio of retail. If you see the trends of the quarter three, there is a 103 basis point improvement over last year. So, on the trend side, we are seeing encouraging signs. But on the YoY, yes, the decrease may not be that sharp. But we believe that this will trend downwards going forward. Now, as I have told, we are not targeting any specific loss ratio as such. We are hoping to deliver a mid-teens ROE business and that is what we are focusing on. This will be a blend of both loss ratio and combined r atio so that we are able to meet those objectives.
Got it. Thank you.
Thank you. We have the next question f rom the line of Nischint Chawathe from Kotak. Please go ahead.
So, Nischint, on the IFRS side the fresh growth that we had in the current quarter had some impact in terms of the ratio. So, it will keep on normalizing as the growth normalizes.
So, at a cohort level, has the acquisition expense ratio gone up?
No, not really. But yes, I mean, the fresh cohort for this quarter will have a hig her acquisition cost which will pan out over a period of time.
The fresh commissions would be higher.
Correct. Which will keep on normalizing.
And in terms of GST impact?
As we have mentioned we have passed on the GST to our intermediaries. There is no impact of GST in this. All the commissions that we have paid are inclusive of GST.
Got it. Thank you very much.
Thank you. We have the next question from the line of Sanketh Godha from Avendus Spark. Please go ahead.
Thank you for the opportunity. My first question is again on the loss ratio for the 3rd Quarter. See, we have a reserve release of Rs. 142 crore and that played a significant role for delta improvement in the loss ratio. If I ignore the reserve release, then your loss ratios probably are very similar to what you reported in second quarter. So, I just wanted to understand this release, how sustainable it is and from which product you have seen this release. Because the release clearly benefited on the loss ratio is my read. The second question is that even if the improvement has happened in loss ratio, any role was played by the GST cut with respect to consumables on the bill s, which I believe is around 20%, 25% of every bil l on an average, the GST cut of around 7% change had any additional benefit on the overall loss ratio what you reported in the 3rd Quarter. That is my first question on loss ratio.
So, Sanketh, the outstanding claims is the functions of the claims we paid during the period because you know 85% of the claims are cashless. While the customer is discharged, the hospital payment happens with the lag of one month. So, whatever we have paid in the current quarter is the claim outstanding as on 30th September. So, whenever the c laim ratio goes down, it is automatically the outstanding claims also goes down because the claim outstanding or the claims reported during the quarter are lower and hence the outstanding claim is lower and the paid is for the last period. So, there is no impact of the reserve release or the outstanding claims reduction on the loss ratio. In fact, we have been strengthening our IBNR quarter-on-quarter to take care of any volatility.
On the GST side, we have seen some impact of that coming on the bills but see the overall ratio of that vis-a-vis our overall spends on claims is a very insignificant amount. I mean it will have some role in offsetting some of our other GST outgo in the ar eas where our services, GST, etc we wi ll have some extra cost but to that extent, the loss ratio improvements are more structural in nature in terms of our pricing improvements, our continuous work on improving our loss cost in terms of managing our book better.
Understood. Maybe that part might be getting reflected in the Opex side. So, only on the claims, whether you had 20, 30, 40 odd basis point positive or above because of the GST benefit?
No, no. Not because of GST benefit.
Understood. Other two questions are basically given your growth has been very strong in the new business. I just wanted to understand the color of the mix in the new business, how much it is long-term compared to previous quar ter or even maybe 3Q to 3Q and 9M to 9M, how much delta has been driven by increase in the contribution of long-term plans. That is one thing I wanted to understand. Second thing is on investment book side, in the IFRS, Rs. 413 crore of fair value change, what you have reported, it is largely related to equity or it includes fair value change meaningfully coming from bonds too?
Let me answer the long-term proportion answer first. We are definitely seeing an uptake in our long-term policies. Such policies are beneficial for both consumers and the company because the consumers are protected against the price hike for the tenure that they have opted for and there is continuity which is intact and the health is secured. Additionally, we are able to lock in the customer early especially at R1, R2 stage where generally the retention rates are better. Further, long-term policies also impr ove our capital efficiency as the customers pay up front. So, from a business standpoint, our approach is very clear. We go for businesses which meets our ROE thresholds. Now, coming to specific numbers of long-term policies, on the fresh side, it has contributed about 23% versus 14% in terms of NOP and in terms of GW P, it is at 51% versus 34% on nine-month basis.
Sorry, can you repeat on GWP basis?
On GWP basis, it is 51% versus 34% on nine months last year.
Understood. On the investment book side, on IFRS Rs. 413 crore of fair value change?
So, in simple words, what you are trying to say is that entire Rs. 413 crore is only related to equity market, nothing to do with bonds.
Equities, AIFs and REITs, InvITs.
Understood. But the proxy equities, I mean to say. Okay. Understood. Thanks. That i s it from my side.
Thank you.
Thank you. We have the next question from the line of Shobhit Sharma from HDFC Securities Limited. Please go ahead.
Yes. Hi, sir. Thanks for the opportunity. Sir, my first question is on the GWP side. Sir, if you can give some color around the RI acceptance which we have done during the quarter. Does this relate to group business? And if it pertains to group business, what is the nature of that business? Is this employer-employee or non-employer-employee? Now, second, coming to the commission issue, it has improved drastically, if you look at. So, what is driving that? Is this because of the first installment of the long-term premium, which we have received this year? Or is this something else? Because we have not written any kind of group business also, major group business during the quarter. So, just want to understand that. On the expenses side, it seems to have elevated a lot during the quarter. So, can you give some light on that? Because there is some impact of the labor code also there. And there seems to be some ESOP cost, which has been accounted for. So, if you can help us understand that. And lastly, on your Slide 13, you have mentioned number of claims which has been paid during the first nine months. If I compare that with the full FY2025 number of claims that seems to be significantly lower, almost 50% of what you had paid in FY2025. So, can you help us understand that as well? Yes, these are my questions. Thank you.
On the Reinsurance inward side, for the quarter, the number reported is Rs. 22 lakhs. We had some treaty done in the last year. There is some adjustment because this treaty will get over on 31st July. There is no new treaty that is written. And it is hardly Rs. 22 lakhs number that is got reported in the current quarter. In terms of labor code, the one-time impact for the quarter is Rs. 16.5 crore, which is reported in Opex, and that is again, which is the point for impact on the expense ratio for the quarter. In terms of number of claims reported in the investor PPT for nine months, there is a typo. I think it is only the IPD claims. So, including OPD, we will just revise it. It is higher for ni ne months period, while the last year’s numbers are including OPD and PHC.
What is the ESOP cost which has been accounted during the quarter, sir?
IGAAP.
There is no impact of ESOP cost on IGAAP. Only if you have issued the ESOP less than the market value, there is an impact with IGAAP numbers. We have not been doing that. In the past I think it is hardly again Rs. 5 to Rs. 10 lakhs when there was a timing difference. That impact is coming, but nothing substantial.
On the claims ratio, it has improved now on the retail side as well. So, what kind of loss ratio if you look at on a sustainable basis, would you be looking at? Would it be the mid -60s kind of a range or would it stay at the current levels only? I am talking from a next two, three years point of view, not on a short-term basis.
No, so see, we do not want to give any number and be guided for that. We are looking at running this business with a little combined ratio which is viable and mid-teens ROE. That is our target that we are focusing on. To achieve that claim ratio and expense ratio, both will play a role. So, I do not want to give any number on that.
Okay. Thank you and all the best.
Thank you.
Thank you. We have the next ques tion from the line of the Dipanjan Ghosh from Citigroup. Please go ahead.
Hi, good morning, sir. A few questions from my side. First, in terms of, you took the last round of price hike somewhere from October’24 to maybe March’25. Now, we are almost 12 months down the road. So, in terms of an incremental price hike strategy on the back book and what can we expect out there, maybe blended price hikes or claimant versus non -claimant portion or portion of the book that will see a price hike. The second question is a data-keeping question in terms of your new business mix within the net earned pr emium. How would that look like from 3Q to 3Q and 9M to 9M? Third question is, we are already 12 months out in terms of repricing of FHO based on claimant and non -claimant. So, just early indicators on persistency and claims ratio of the book.
So, on pricing, we took up last year in Q4 and we will be following the annual price cycle as it is. As far as the cohort -based pricing approach that we took for FHO, that has given us very good results. We are clearly seeing a good lift in terms of the no n-claimants and the risks that are giving us better retentions. So, that is clearly playing out and we will follow this approach going forward as well.
In terms of new business earned premium, the growth in business does not get reflected in the earned premium. So, if we see, it will gradually keep on growing. The proportion is in the range of around 20% fresh NEP and 80% renewal NEP. That ratio has been in a similar range because whenever we take a price increase in renewal business that also lea ds to higher earned premium on renewal business. As long as it i s a healthy mix and the loss ratios are coming down, we are happy to manage that.
Got it. Sir, just one follow -up. Could you quantify the price hike anticipated in this calendar year?
So, Dipanjan, the guidance says that 10% senior citizen is the number that has been guided by the regulator. So, you can assume that that will be the number for almost all the products in that range, maybe slightly higher or lower depending on the product portfolio.
Got it. Thank you and all the best.
Thank you.
Thank you. We have the next question from the line of Ansuman Deb from ICICI Securities. Please go ahead.
Yes, hi. Thanks for the opportunity. My question is on the mix of long -term as well as the mix of high -yielding assets on the AUM. Long-term is now, as you said, around 23% and high - yielding assets around 19%. From a balancing act, there would be a certain limit to these two numbers because otherwise, at some point, we might have some other related issues. So, I was just wondering, is there any limit which we are working on these two fronts?
So, Ansuman, high-yielding assets, as of now, we consider equity, REITs and InvITs, AIF as high- yielding assets. For equities, currently, we have kept this cap of 15%. And obviously, it would be a function of opportunities. So, that is one. As far as REITs and InvITs are concerned, there is a regulatory cap of 3%. We are currently operating close to 3. On AIFs, we have started investing. Drawdowns are small, but we do have intent to scale up the book slowly. So, REITs and InvITs kept at 3%. AIFs, we have started just the activities. Equity is kept at 15%. This is where we stand today and broadly, only in exceptional situations we would take any aggressive step on equities from here on.
On the IFRS, some MTM losses on equity can happen on Q4. It will continue as it is. But on a steady-state basis, ideally, non-equity mix should yield around 6.5%, whereas the rest will be a function of equity. Is that the right understanding?
Not exactly. Non-equity has two components. One is a core fixed income, and another one is the liquidity that we maintain for day -to-day operations. As far as core fixed income is concerned, we are currently operating at 7.71%.
See, l inearly, we would not like to give any comment on this because it is a function of opportunity. For example, as you are seeing today in the market, there is a sell -off in the G - Secs. Long end of the bond curve or long end of the yield curve of G-Sec is extremely attractive. So, if I build up my book there, you would find that there would be some pressure and then maybe the yield should marginally decline from 7.71%. But that would give me an opportunity tomorrow when credit spreads expand. At that time, I would ramp up my credit book. So, it is a function of opportunity. It would not be very linear, but as and when opportunities are there, we try to tap those segments so that 7.71% is sustained. Now, it is also a function of maturing book. Maturing book may have higher yielding assets. So, if we are in position to replace those assets with equally or higher yielding assets, then it would sustain. Broadly, our endeavor is to maintain it to 7.71% or take it higher. But there may be time gaps and mismatches here and there.
So, 7.71% you are saying, we will try to maintain that on the non-equity or maybe it will go up also?
Depending upon the opportunities, yes, absolutely.
Okay. On the long-term mix, any limits?
See, on the long-term business, we do not work on any limits. As mentioned earlier, we look at all our businesses. The decisions are made on IFRS basis and we go behind businesses which meet ROE thresholds. We believe that long-term business is delivering mid-teens ROEs.
Okay. Thank you. That will be all.
Thank you. We have the next question from the line of Satvik from Jefferies. Please go ahead.
Thank you for the opportunity and congratulations on your set of results. Just a couple of bookkeeping questions from my end. Firstly, on the share of long -term policy mix in 3Q and what was it in 2Q and what was it last year, if you could help with? And the second one on how much of advanced premiums are we carrying now versus 1H and last year? That will be from my end.
Can we take this separately with you offline?
Sure. No problem. Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi, good morning, sir. Congrats on a good quarter. I just wanted to understand the Rs. 140 odd crore which was released from the outstanding claims. So, how do we look at this number going forward in terms of is it that we have paid a lot of the claims which are outstanding from earlier or is it a function of the TAT or the company itself reducing? And going forward, should the numbers or total IBNR number as a percentage of the net earned premiums be lower than the 8%, 9% where we have traditionally operated?
Outstanding claims is a function of seasonality. Q2 where the claims ratio is higher, the claims get reported and they stay in the books till the time it is paid. 30th September, there is an outstanding which gets paid in October. So, as the loss ratio reduces, there is an impact on the outstanding. But it i s also a function of the business volume. As we keep on growing the business and the number of claims, earned premium grows, the number of claims increases. So, there is no value to it. It is a function of quarterly claims reporting that happens and the payment of claims that happens in a period. But we believe it should be in that range of 8.5% to 9.5%, 10%. It should operate in that range. So, we tried it on a trailing 12 -month basis also which is the right metric.
Okay sir. Have we se en a meaningful reduction in TAT which should reduce this number sustainably?
See, there are two things. One is the cashless claims continues to be 85% of our book. The customer gets discharged from the hospital. The claim payment to the hospital happens within the defined time limits on the contract to the hospital. It can be 50 days, it can be 30 days also. So, that happens subsequently the customer is discharged. So, the TAT and the claim payment is independent because of the cashless and the payment to the hospital. Raghvesh Okay, sir. Got it. Thanks a lot.
Thank you. We have the next question from the line of Nidesh from Investec. Please go ahead.
Thanks for the opportunity, sir. First question, if you can share the breakup of investment book in terms of government securities, central government securities, state government securities, corporate bonds and equity.
So, it is like this that as on 31 st December, central government securities would be approximately 22% of the book. Central government and state government put together would be approximately, so basically IRDA I defines it that minimum central government has to be 20%. So, we are keeping minimum 22%. So, as of now, marginally higher 22 point something. On central government and state government put together, IRDA I says that should be 30%. It would be somewhere around 33%. Rest is all corporate bonds and equity as you know that is around 14.9%. REITs, InvITs and AIF another 3.8%. So, total is 18.5%. This is how the breakup of book is.
And what are the plans to take up the equity share higher? Is there a plan to further increase the share of equity and REITs, InvITs in the book?
REITs and InvITs cannot be because regulation says that we can be up to 3%. So, we are there. Regulator has talked about increasing this up to 6%, but we are waiting for the final regulations on this. So, REITs and InvITs as of now at the upper cap. As far as equity is concerned, we have some internal models where we do risk appetite testing and based on which we ultimately take a call that how much of equity exposures that we would take. So, there would be a possibility that yes, we can increase equities by some quantum. It is a function of the solvency of the company and the capital requirement. So, broadly, these are the factors which determine that how much of risk that we can take in the book. This is where we stand as of now currently capped at 15%.
Sure. Secondly, on the long-term policy, is the share of long-term policy at 51% of GWP today in Q3?
Yes, of fresh.
Of fresh is 51%?
Yes.
In the IFRS accounting, because the deferred acquisition cost is getting deferred, but let us say, I am assuming that most of these will be three -year long-term policies. So, the loss ratios will keep on increasing. So, in IFRS, does it give a true picture of the profitability of long -term policies or it overstates the profitability in the first year and then in the second, third year, we will see slightly lower profitabili ty on these policies because loss ratios may increase in year two, year three.
See, there are two things. One is the deferment happens over the policy period, but the operating cost is very high in the first year itself, which is in the P&L in the first year. So, on a combined ratio basis, it is still in a similar range. You know, while the commission ratio remain stable and the loss ratios increases, there is no Opex in the second and third year, which is there only in the first year.
Sure, sure. And the last question is on IFRS. Thanks for the det ailed disclosure on IFRS IND AS financial. So, two, three questions. One is that how should we look at the investment income? Should we remove the, let us say, mark-to-market gains and then look at the profitability or we should look at the reported profitability? That is number one. Second , what is the difference between insurance revenue and NEP? I thought that insurance revenue and NEP would be similar in case of IFRS.
See, I will answer the second question first. Insurance revenue is typically the gross earned premium. You know, the NEP is net of reinsurance. In IFRS, if you see net results of reinsurance is a single line. You know, so, and the claim reported is gross linked, you know, the acquisition cost is the commission paid deferred over a period of time. The RI recovery on claims and RI commission is as a single line item as net results of reinsurance, basically. So, that is the difference between earned premium and insurance revenue. On the investment income, what I would suggest is while there is volatility, you know, we have been talking about, to take zero is not the correct thing. You know, we have a Rs.3,000 crore of equity portfolio. One can take an average return of 10% and calculate stable revenue or the profits over a period of time. That is how one can look at it, which is also quite strong.
So, Nidesh, see, we have to understand that equity markets would remain volatile. But what we have realized is over a longer period of time, equi ty returns are very closely correlated to nominal GDP growth. So, on an average, we can assume that 10 % to 11% kind of nominal growth would be there and hence that would get translated into equity returns as well. But yes, quarter-to-quarter, there would be volatility. That is the problem of IFRS, you know, that P&L accounts would become volatile. But that does not mean that we should stay a way from high yielding assets, especially when we are long term investors in the market. So, that is what our approach is, that we look at this asset class and from 7% moving to, say, 11% kind of asset class and that would be perfect for long term investors. So, this is what we are trying to do. We are reasonably hopeful that over a longer period of time, that 15% or 19% of the book would deliver reasonably good returns, much higher than what the fixed income book would deliver.
Sure, sir. Very useful. Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, due to time constraint, that was the last question for today. I now hand the conference over to Mr. Nilesh Kambli for the closing comments.
So, we have experienced a strong quarter in terms of top line growth and an improvement in our operating results, both reduction of losses and expense ratio. We are focused on execution to maintain consistency over performance. So, thank you everyone for joining the conference.
Thank you very much. On behalf of Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited, that concludes this conference. Thank you for joining us and you may now disconnect your line. This is a transcript and may contain transcription errors. The Company or the sender takes no responsibility for such errors, although an effort has been made to ensure high level of accuracy.