The New India Assurance Company Ltd. makes a corporate announcement

FY24 underwriting weakened materially: the combined ratio rose to 120.99% from 117.15% in FY23, a 3.84 percentage-point deterioration. The claims ratio was the larger adverse movement, while both commission and expense ratios also increased. ^[1]

The combined ratio is therefore claims ratio + commission ratio + expense ratio: 97.36% + 8.74% + 14.89% = 120.99% in FY24, versus 95.59% + 7.75% + 13.82% = 117.16% in FY23, with the small rounding difference versus the reported 117.15%.

Investment-income bridge

On the standalone FY24 basis consistent with the reported PAT of Rs 1,129.34 Crores, the underwriting loss was Rs 7,189.62 Crores. Net investment income in the policyholders’ operating account was Rs 6,564.15 Crores, covering 91.3% of the underwriting deficit and reducing it to an operating loss of Rs 625.47 Crores. ^[2]

The reported profit then reflected the following bridge:

• Underwriting loss: Rs (7,189.62) Crores
• Add: policyholders’ fund investment income: Rs 6,564.15 Crores
• Operating loss after this offset: Rs (625.47) Crores
• Add: shareholders’ fund investment income of Rs 2,740.34 Crores and other income of Rs 15.40 Crores
• Less: non-insurance expenses and provisions of Rs 684.78 Crores
• Profit before tax: Rs 1,445.49 Crores
• Less: tax of Rs 316.15 Crores
• Reported PAT: Rs 1,129.34 Crores ^[2]

Thus, total investment income across the operating and shareholders’ accounts was Rs 9,304.49 Crores on a derived basis, equivalent to approximately 129.4% of the underwriting loss. Investment income more than absorbed the underwriting deficit, but the final PAT was substantially lower after other expenses, provisions and tax.

NIACL’s solvency ratio was 1.81x as of March 31, 2024, on the audited standalone basis. The available solvency margin for FY24 was reported at Rs 18,456.59 Crores; the ratio is calculated as available solvency margin divided by required solvency margin. ^{[3] [4]}

Against the 1.50x regulatory requirement specified in your question, this represents:

• 0.31x of reported headroom above the minimum.
• 20.67% above the requirement, calculated as `(1.81 / 1.50) - 1`.

Effect of claims provisioning

FY24 incurred claims were Rs 33,128.27 Crores, comprising claims paid of Rs 30,957.09 Crores and a net increase in outstanding claims, including IBNR and IBNER, of Rs 2,171.18 Crores. The latter was approximately 6.55% of incurred claims, calculated from the reported figures. This is a net reserve movement, not necessarily gross new provisioning. ^[4]

The IBNR and IBNER reserves were determined by the appointed actuary in accordance with applicable actuarial practice and IRDAI requirements. ^[5] In addition, management reported a net impact of approximately Rs 794 Crores from catastrophic claims during FY24. ^[6]

Analytical implication: claims provisioning increases recognised insurance liabilities and, all else equal, reduces the capital surplus available for solvency purposes. However, the reported 1.81x ratio is already the post-provision solvency position; the claims provision should not be deducted again from the reported available solvency margin. The disclosures do not provide a pre-provision ASM or an adjusted solvency ratio, so the precise standalone impact of claims provisioning on available solvency capital cannot be quantified. On the reported basis, NIACL remained above the 1.50x requirement, although solvency declined from 1.87x in FY23 to 1.81x in FY24. ^[4]

FY24 GWP mix bridge

The clearest FY23-to-FY24 shift is visible at Go Digit: the portfolio moved modestly away from Motor and toward Health, Travel and Personal Accident. Motor’s share declined from 63% to 61% of GWP, while Health, Travel and PA increased from 13% to 19%—a 2 pp reduction in Motor and 6 pp increase in Health-related business. The shift was driven by faster Health growth of 80%, versus 21% for Motor. ^[7]

This was therefore not a broad-based reduction in Motor: Own Damage gained share, but the larger Third-Party book lost share.

For New India Assurance, FY24 GWP was reported at Rs 41,996.46 Crores, comprising Motor GWP of Rs 11,145.23 Crores and Health including Travel of Rs 18,457.97 Crores. On a derived basis, this equates to approximately 26.54% Motor and 43.95% Health including Travel. ^[8] A clean FY23-to-FY24 GWP mix bridge is not available in the same table, so the Go Digit shift should not be generalized mechanically to NIACL.

At the broader industry level, Health including PA and Travel was the largest FY24 segment at approximately 40.3% of GDPI, versus approximately 31.7% for Motor. These are GDPI, rather than GWP, figures and are therefore directional when compared with company GWP mix. ^{[9] [10]}

Loss-ratio comparison

ICICI Lombard reported the following FY24 segment loss ratios:

^[11]

The cited General Insurance Council industry data supports the premium-mix comparison, but does not provide a directly comparable FY24 industry-average loss ratio for both Motor and Health. The closest industry benchmark cited is a 9M FY24 combined ratio of 112.2% overall and 118.2% for Motor; combined ratio includes expenses and is not comparable with a loss ratio. ^[12]

Conclusion: FY24 premium growth was structurally more Health-led, particularly at Go Digit, while ICICI Lombard’s reported loss ratios were 65.2% for Motor and 81.4% for Health. An exact company-versus-GI-Council loss-ratio gap cannot be established from the cited industry data without mixing unlike metrics.