Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Q4 earnings call of Medi Assist Healthcare Services Limited.

The company published its results on 9th May, and has uploaded the investor presentation on the exchanges earlier today. I trust all of you have had the opportunity to go through the same.

Before we start, a disclaimer: some of the statements made in today's earnings call may be forward-looking in nature. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from those anticipated.

Such statements are made based on management's beliefs and assumptions, made by the information currently available to the management. Audience are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements while making their investment decisions.

On that note, let me introduce you to the management participating in today's conference call. We have with us Mr.

Satish Gidugu, CEO and Whole-Time Director; Mr. Sandeep Daga, CFO; along with several members of the team.

Without further ado, I'd like to hand over the call to Satish. Thank you, and over to you, Satish.

Thank you, Cyril. Good morning, esteemed investors, analysts, and all participants joining us from India and around the world.

Thank you for taking the time to join us today as we review Medi Assist's performance for the year ended FY26. FY26 was a milestone year for Medi Assist, right, as we combined strong growth and deep technology-led transformation.

Becoming debt-free and net cash positive strengthens our ability to invest in the future, while our AI-powered platforms are now operating at unprecedented scale, processing nearly 1 million claims every month with industry-leading automation and fraud detection. The rapid expansion of Matrix, successful integration of Paramount, and our new global partnerships position us very strongly to build the next generation of intelligent, borderless healthcare administration.

I'm pleased to be joined by our CFO Sandeep Daga, and Cyril from EY, who leads our investor relations function. I'd first like to share some of the key operational highlights from FY26.

Before we go in, we continue to improve the quality of disclosures every quarter. We have further added more metrics for each of the segments now that we operate in: group, retail, government, international benefits administration, technology business, and also tried to give all of you a color on our technology platform and its evolution.

While we will not necessarily do a page turn, let me summarize some of the key operational highlights from the year. The total premium under management administered was ₹25,923 crore as on 31st of March 2026, a growth of 22.8%.

For someone who's been with this business for this long, personally for me, a ₹25,000 crore is a milestone number. I'm happy to share with all of you today.

The group premiums were ₹23,000+ crore, a growth of 25.6% year on year, and our group premiums retention stood at 93.2%, of course these are excluding acquisition numbers. The retail premiums in the TPA model were ₹2,818 crore, a growth of 4.2% year on year.

The market shares in terms of health insurance premium administered in group and retail of the total health premiums in India was 20.7% end of the year, which demonstrated 115 basis points year-on-year growth. The group segment market share saw 340 bps of YoY growth, taking us to 33.7%.

The retail segment market share in the traditional TPA model is 5% on 31st March 2026, and slightly lower than the market share the previous year. In line with our hybrid approach to retail, as we discussed in some of the calls earlier, we have reported the premiums managed by private insurers on the back of our core claims processing technology platform, Matrix.

These premiums currently stand at over ₹18,000 crore, which represents 32% of the industry retail premiums. While we were improving on the India business, we've also leveraged capabilities for delivering seamless global administration services through expanding partnerships.

We've deepened Southeast Asia presence through a strategic partnership with Thailand's leading insurance broker, giving us access to over $50 million of group premiums in that region. We expanded retail and travel portfolio, and we've reported elsewhere in the slides the number of retail lives growth and the fact that we now have line of sight to about half of the global travel premiums that are being booked in India.

We also built some key global partnerships with Freedom Health, Himalayan Everest Insurance, and Royal Insurance Corporation of Bhutan, expanding our ability to deliver outcomes for both inbound and outbound healthcare administration. Coming to Paramount TPA, the integration is on track.

Over 50% of Paramount Healthcare Services' claims volume has already migrated to Matrix and on track to becoming the primary processing engine before the Q2 of FY27. We've been able to enable all of the AI capabilities for the Paramount clients that are migrating to this new stack.

As disclosed earlier, we've executed a slump transfer of Paramount TPA's TPA operations to Medi Assist TPA, effective February 1st, 2026, thereby creating a single, unified TPA business within the group. Moving on to the technology highlights, our tech revenues grew 91.9% year on year.

There are multiple pilots underway with insurers in India and overseas. MavenGAARD, our proprietary AI fraud detection platform, has found and prevented over ₹540 crore of health insurance frauds in the last financial year.

Raksha Prime, our flagship offering for improving cashless experience, enabled over 322,000 patients to walk out of the hospitals before the bills got even generated across 6,000 hospitals in FY26. All in all, we continue to be a technology-first, digitally integrated platform that delivers outcomes to all the key constituents of the industry: the payers, the providers, and the members.

Our AI investments are paying off in creating a unified, interconnected intelligence platform that we believe is going to change the way all of these stakeholders experience healthcare service delivery. I will now hand over the call to our CFO Sandeep, who will take you through the financials for the year FY26.

Thank you, Satish, and a very warm welcome to all the participants. The financial highlights for FY26: Total income was ₹923.2 crore, a growth of 23.6% YoY.

The revenue from contracts with customers, excluding other income, which we call as operating income, was ₹904.8 crore, a growth of 25.1 percentage year on year. This time, we are disclosing separate segments and their revenue contribution to the group as such, as a result of which the group segment contributes roughly around 69.5 percentage of the total revenue, translating to ₹629.1 crore, representing a 25.3 percentage growth year on year.

10.6 percentage of the total revenue came from the retail segment, translating to ₹95.5 crore, representing a 10.9 percentage growth year on year. 12.6 percentage of the total revenue came from our government business, translating to ₹113.6 crore, representing a 42.6 percentage growth year on year.

4.5 percentage of the total revenue came from the international business administration business, translating to ₹41.1 crore, representing the 11.9 percentage growth year on year. The technology SaaS platform contributed to 2.5 percentage of the total revenue, translating to ₹21.7 crore, representing a 91.9 percentage growth year on year.

Coming to the margin profile, EBITDA, excluding other income, we call it as operating EBITDA, was ₹174.6 crore. This translated a growth of 13.3 percentage year on year and was equivalent to a margin of 19.3 percentage on operating revenue.

We have seen a quarterly EBITDA expansion in the margin. The Quarter 4 EBITDA profile was 19.9 percentage versus 18.6 percentage in Q3 and 17.1 percentage in Q2.

The reported PAT for the year was ₹89.3 crore. However, once we exclude the exception items, net of the tax impact, the adjusted PAT stands at ₹68.8 crore.

However, we have also shared in the investor presentation the PAT bridge to steady-state PAT and our commentary on the same, which can be referred on slide number 13 and 14. Moving to few of the key highlights from the balance sheet and other operating matrices as on 31st of March 2026: The free cash flow position as on date was ₹260.5 crore.

The net worth of the group stood at ₹852.4 crore. Contract liability ₹280.2 crore.

Pleased to inform that the group has become debt-free during Jan 2026. The revenue per average headcount on the non-government business was ₹13.1 lakhs.

With this, I hand over the call back to the Chorus Call team. Thank you.

Hello. Am I audible?

Yes, Navid. We can hear you.

Yeah. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity.

I have two, three questions. First one is on the overall business.

If we look at the dominance and the market share that we have in the group business, that is kind of missing in the retail part. Now, given the capabilities that Medi Assist possesses as of date, how do you think this kind of dominance can be achieved in the retail business?

That's the first question I have.

Sure, Navid. This is Satish here.

I'll attempt to answer that question. Right.

Group, we don't have to discuss, but in group, the policyholder typically is far more aware of the service they need, the complexity of the requirements that they want, the technology, the deployment, the networks, and the importance to provide some kind of stability and continuity for their employees as they continue to expand benefits and potentially work with more than one insurer even, right? That is what allowed us to establish our right in the group business and significantly expand our market share.

Retail, for a very long time, was If I were to put it, plain vanilla catastrophic care, inpatient only, with a very low incidence, very low frequency and high-value claims. Depending on the insurers and when they started their journey of building some of these capabilities, there was a time where the TPA industry was not ready, and some of the other insurers that came in later followed a hybrid approach of building some capabilities inside and using TPAs, and some of the newer generations are relying on TPAs for large-scale dependencies such as network and physical presence, electronic distribution.

I think depending on the insurer, they're at different stages of where they are in their evolution. What we have seen, especially post-COVID, is there are two or three areas where we've seen opportunities: one where products are moving to, say, a high-frequency, low-value claims, especially around outpatients and various benefit products, or where the insurers needed to supplement their desire to be the front end to their customers, but with significant backend capabilities, such as countrywide network and superior fraud detection, and sometimes even an entirely new claims processing system.

Retail, in our minds, is evolved to be for lack of better words, a hybrid approach across the country. Today, we are able to deploy our TPA capabilities in the portfolios where we are hired as a TPA, which basically means that the insurer introduces us to the member saying Medi Assist will henceforth take care of you.

We have solutions today by teasing all of the technology capabilities in a plug-and-play model, where the insurers are able to plug in the various capabilities that will make them more effective in delivering retail services to their membership. That's what we are beginning to sort of report as our technology revenues.

I think, Navid, sorry, I know it was long-winded, but I think the market is evolving, and we have solutions for whatever be the scenario in which a retail insurer prefers to sort of evolve their approach. We still probably deliver the best if we were to run end

to end. Perfect, sir.

Thank you for that elaborate answer. Just a follow-up on that one.

It's really helpful to see additional datapoints that you have introduced, which I am assuming is pertaining to the technology business. I can now see that there is ₹18,100 crore kind of a premium, which is being administered through the technologies that Medi Assist has introduced.

How can I, let's say, get a sense on the kind of earnings that Medi Assist is generating on this piece of business, because if I look at the overall PUM, revenue divided by overall PUM, I can get a sense that there is a 3.5% kind of a yield that Medi Assist earns. Since this new datapoint has been introduced, is there a metric or is there a suggestion that you would give to investors like us who can track the kind of realizations or earnings that we are generating on the technology part of the business?

Sir,

thank you. I think we've typically not disclosed some of these revenue metrics as in the past, as it's an evolving space, right?

If you look at the TPA business today and look at the way some of the contractual obligations are around the headcounts that we deploy for fulfilling contractual obligations, I think it would be fair to say that a reasonable target state is the technology business allowing us to capture the non-headcount portions, right, of our yields and, hopefully, be able to charge, in some cases, on outcomes, and with a higher margin profile of maybe at least 1.5 to 2 times the traditional TPA business, I think, directionally would be a fair way to look at it. However, this is not a guidance, and this is just to give you a perspective of the parameters that typically go into this evolution of our platform-led growth.

If I were to just take this a little further and look at what we are able to do in the international markets today, we're able to deploy the same technology stack globally. That's the pipeline that we've spent a lot of time building in FY26.

For example, the contract that we've recently signed in Thailand allows us to provide our frontend technologies that are critical for membership's digital experiences to a cohort that's actually being serviced in that country. A lot of our international contracts are also on the back of how we are able to deploy our tech as is in those geographies.

Given the wide variety of contracts and the deployment models, it'll be hard for us to provide a guidance. I think what I said earlier, I think, would be a reasonable aspiration.

Perfect, sir. That helps.

Last question I have, sir: if I look at the industry, can you help us understand let's say if the industry premium is ₹100, what portion of that is being administered via TPAs, and what portion of the industry premiums are not under the TPA purview as of now? If you can give some understanding on that, that would be helpful.

There are no clearly reported numbers, and one has to compile based on multiple disclosures across insurers and TPAs. I think just from an order-of-magnitude perspective, best to think about it as a 50-50, within what the traditional TPA models are deployed, and predominantly so in the group side of the business, for reasons I mentioned earlier.

The other 50, also for some regulatory reasons, like, for example, the personal accident and others, not in the scope of the TPA. I think I would go with a 50-50 for now, just for you to get a sense of the size of the market.

Perfect. Thank you for answering all my questions.

Wish you all the best. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Navid.

Hi. Thank you for taking my question.

My first one is a follow-up on earlier participant's question in terms of getting a sense on the international segments, specifically around what is our take rate or the pricing. This 22-odd crore that we got in FY26 from the technology side, is it sort of fair to assume that of the premium managed on the platform model, that would be essentially in a way a denominator from which we can sort of get a sense on the take rate?

Then, depending on the mix of Raksha Prime or the mix of probably Matrix or Maven, where pricing could probably evolve over time. That was just from our first question, from our understanding perspective.

My second question was that if I look at your retention compared to last year, ex of Paramount is about 93.2%. Just wanted to understand why that is slightly lower.

If you can also give some color on the PSU allocation, specifically around retail and group, given the conversations, how those are sort of evolving. My third question would be that if I was to assume Paramount contribution at about 34, 35-odd crore, similar to last quarter, excluding that, the growth is around 10-11%, which is ex of Paramount.

What are the levers here for us over the next 2 years to probably accelerate this, and what kind of mix and what is the kind of growth aspiration that you have going forward? These would be broadly my questions.

Thank you, Prithvish. That was a lot, but I will attempt to answer each one of them as best of my abilities.

I think the first question, the reason we put the premiums out is think of this as an opportunity that exists, not necessarily the limiting factor on the current set of revenues. Obviously, the revenues in FY26 are also because of the timing and how much of the transition sort of has taken place of some of the core deliverables.

I think you're right. The way to look at it is that there is an opportunity basket that exists.

I think the more we are able to deliver in terms of incremental components and incremental capabilities, the incremental revenues from those premiums will continue to grow. At this point, the revenues are only from the pure SaaS platform, which is the core claims engine like Matrix.

It currently does not have any of the AI-led features or outcome-based pricings built in yet. Because in the past, our AI engines were very tightly coupled to Matrix, because one had to first migrate to Matrix in order to be able to use some of these services.

As mentioned in the deck and in our PR, we've been able to now sort of tease these capabilities out. Today, MavenGAARD, our fraud detection engine, or Raksha Prime, our discharge experience, and a few other very interesting capabilities that are in the labs, can now work on top of legacy or proprietary claims platform that the insurance companies might already be running, and deliver some of these incremental values.

In summary, this is the opportunity of the pie that exists, and the total revenues that we booked will be based on the value that we're able to create to the insurers that are on the platform. On the retention side, on group side, yes, it is marginally lower than our historical 94+%.

I think part of that is attributable to some of the deliberate decisions that we took at the beginning of the year from a quality of revenue perspective. Of course, part of that was a little bit of a transition in some of the operational changes that we made to improve the overall experience.

While we've not discussed the Q1, and we see the 93% largely driven by what transpired in Q1 of last year. Since then, I think, we've gotten back on track, and hopefully as we move forward, we should get back to our slightly higher retention rates.

On the allocations of retail and so on, these are not in our control. Different insurers have different cycles.

As and when there is an allocation that happens, I think we will continue to sort of participate and win based on merits. Especially if you look at the work that we are doing on retail, I'm just trying to find the page, there's page number 8, where we talked about the retail business, while the premiums that we managed grew just by about 4% in the TPA model, we've delivered over 38% improvement in the fraud detections, in our small portfolio of that size.

We've delivered experience to the membership in retail, which is typically not been seen in the market today. As we continue to deliver and redefine how retail customer is serviced at par with the group customers, and we believe that will continue to improve our right to win even in the standard TPA model.

Lastly, I think from a growth perspective, you're right, the consolidated growths are in the range that you spoke about. By the end of the day, for us, Paramount is an organic one, the moment we signed the deal, because the retention, responsibility, and growth of that book is 100% our responsibility.

In some ways, adding Paramount is an organic growth once we signed. Having said that, if you looked at the business segment reporting that we've done, this is the first time we've sort of called out the revenue contributions from each group.

You've also seen the outcomes that we're able to deliver to the insurers, significantly supplementing from a growth perspective. We expect the technology and international growth trends to sort of continue, if not improve, compared to FY26.

On the core business, we will, as we always said, from an overall industry growth perspective, we will match or better. Of course, the translation to revenue is slightly slower because we don't report on premiums, we report on a 12-month basis service.

That's why a lot of our revenue today sits in what we call as contract liability, which is revenue that is committed, but we haven't yet booked into the P&L. That's an incremental ₹280 crore of unearned revenue that's actually sitting in the balance sheet today.

Got it. Sir, anything on the mix, because as of now, technology is contributing around 2.5%.

Maybe say 20 a couple of years forward, how do you see the contribution from this coming through? Because this, as you have mentioned, this 2.5% is probably just from as of now the one product that we are monetizing, but we are developing capabilities across multiple sort of lines.

How much do you think, how big can this piece become over the next maybe say 2, 3 years? Obviously,

we think that it's a great opportunity, especially if you put the international opportunities in the mix, right? Right now, we are only reporting limited deployments in the Indian market with limited insurers.

I think we're comfortable to say that, compared to FY26, there were some very interesting growth rates you saw on the tech business. You've not seen a lot of the growth on the international business, but a substantial amount of the work was done to build a very strong pipeline and contribute to the international business.

I think we're comfortable saying similar growth rates you should continue to see in these businesses. Of course, we also hope that as India needs to buy more and more insurance, that between the policy interventions and other opportunities, that the health insurance market itself will start picking up the growth trends that were visible not too long ago.

Then, as the leading player in the market, we will continue to make the most of the health insurance growth trajectory in India.

Congrats to the management for becoming debt-free. Sir, I have one question, which is on the government-backed Bima Sugam.

What impact can you envisage that it can have on our business in future?

I think let's just take a step back and look at the whole objective and the vision of the government, which is 2047, right, insurance for all by 2047, of course, which means health insurance for all. Everybody needs to be covered by some kind of health financing plan, right, whether it is private or public sponsored, and whichever be the template.

Of course, for a country of this size, one is to aspire that everybody has insurance. Two is how do you make that a reality, both from people discovering products, participating in purchasing products and getting exceptional service in every nook and corner of this subcontinent, and some of those are the core capabilities that we need to build as a country.

The government's vision, in some ways, includes a multi-pronged approach. One is how do you create a simplified marketplace where the citizens of this country can discover insurance and buy, and that's more on the distribution side.

Of course, the second and equally important aspect is the whole Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission, which is the mothership for many other digital interventions, be it the standardization of the hospital records, to electronic health records, to creating the equivalent of an account aggregator, but in the healthcare space, to building the equivalent of a UPI for health payments. I think these are various initiatives that the government has kicked off between NHA and the IRDAI.

We are a very proud partner to many of these events, especially on the National Health Claims Exchange. We are deeply integrated.

Multiple insurers use our integration today to integrate with NHCX. I think the only positive takeaway that I will take out of this, Jayesh, is if all of these initiatives get us back to the CAGRs that are actually needed between now and 2047 for health insurance to reach 100% of the population, and we will be there in whatever form and fashion that we can one, support that initiative, and to monetize the capabilities that we've built, be it as a TPA, or as a technology partner, or even in the public health.

You've seen the work that we do across 13 states and three union territories today, contributing over ₹113 crore of our revenue. I know it's a long-winded answer, but it'll be unfair for me to limit this only to Bima Sugam.

That's all.

I was specifically asking for our business, in a sense where claim filing and claim settlement is also part of this, and we have government as our one of the biggest customers. In maybe not in say longer term, say 5, 10 years, but do you see it as a risk immediately for a couple of years, maybe once it is launched and once it becomes acceptable?

Though

the industry is growing, maybe in a pretty long period of time, it will be advantageous to us as well. Say in a short span, say 2, 3 years?

No, I do not expect any disruption on account of Bima Sugam on what we do. At the end of the day, every member who buys a policy, policy is a promise, and the claims have to be adjudicated and processed, and network has to be delivered, service has to be delivered.

Unfortunately, sometimes we look at health insurance, and thumb is done only to just processing a claim post facto, right? It's about building networks, it's about eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse at source.

It's about guiding membership to find the right hospital within their financial outcomes. Today, over 60% of the membership today that uses our Navigator, which is a predictive tool, actually adjust their room types and the hospital choices to optimize their out-of-pocket expenses today, right?

Somebody needs to sort of demystify the insurance policies, and so on and so forth. I think, one, the service gamut of health insurance is beyond just a post-facto reaction to a claim that is actually filed.

In fact, I would argue that the true measure of this country's success would be a 100% cashless and resulting in 100% payable in health insurance products, rather than those products that actually focus on deductions. I think each of those will need distribution, scale, network, technology, manpower, and integrations, which we believe we have a combination of all of those that are required for us to be very effective partner either in the National Health Claims Exchange or to be a backbone for any of the other initiatives.

Hello. Good morning, management.

Hope I'm audible. My question on the company is that we are majorly based on the AI, and in continuously claim processing also, we are continuously using the AI on Matrix.

What is the error rate of a AI, and what is the chance that if the AI is so powerful and 99% of the claim processing work will be done by the AI, and of course, the insurance company also will know that we are using AI to cut our cost. Is there any chance that in future, maybe after 3, 4 years, the normal take rate is continue about 3.5% in the industry, which can be reduced to 2.5% or maybe lower?

Thanks, Vansh. I think there are multiple nuances to your question.

I'll try to peel the layers. Right, first, in countries like US, and I think, in fact, in my past life in early 2000s, I built rule engines that automated partly the health claims processing in markets like the US.

It's not unusual in any market for claims to be automatically processed. You have already seen that in certain areas in India, especially like small-value motor claims, right?

You can upload a picture, you can click a picture and send it, because often it costs more to send a surveyor to assess the loss than just pay the claim today, right? Of course, you want assurance that the event has actually taken place, there's no fraud, waste, or abuse, and that the reimbursements that you are paying to somebody are exactly as per the policy.

A substantial part of claims processing is actually rule driven, right? It would be unfair for us, even for me as a technologist, to say that you need complex AI to automate a claim.

What we lack today as a country are good quality data inputs, structured data to actually deliver an application of the rules, right? It is not different from how you compute an income tax liability today from various income sources.

You have well-defined rules and a sequence of rules application, and eventually you'll arrive at a tax number. Of course, one wouldn't be happy if you came up with just a number and you couldn't explain how you came up with the number, or even if somebody told you you are ±5%, right, within that zone, right?

Now, take that parallel to health insurance claims. I think where we have excelled so far is to build possibly the country's largest codification of master data, inputs, and rules that are required for us to adjudicate each claim as per the promise of each policy of each member, and overlay that on each bill and each specific treatment, and be able to completely independently explain how the system actually arrived at the final outcomes of a claim.

That's what we actually do today. Much as we would like to say AI will automate a claim, what we need AI for right now urgently in the country, is to make sure inputs are good enough for the rule engines, and two, that nobody's playing the system.

Rest is largely rule driven. I think that's the combination today we deploy, and that's how we are able to deliver value that is absolutely measurable to the insurers, like fraud savings of over ₹540 crore.

We deliver network discounts of over ₹1,300 crore last year. I think that's where we are, Vansh.

This space will evolve, and I hope that we actually are able to automate 70% to 80% of all health insurance claims in a manner that citizens of this country rebuild their trust or build their trust in health insurance, which actually allows us to really run towards this 100% coverage by 2047. When that day comes, yield is a smaller problem, and opportunity is the larger problem.

Okay. You didn't give answer to the rate part, that whether there is a chance because IRDA also continuously pressurizing insurance companies to lower the insurance premium.

Is there a chance that our take rate can also decrease from 5 years from now to 3.5% to 2.5% or so? Because it's already decreased from 5% in last 5 years.

I think it's very hard for me to forecast what will happen 5 years later. Much of the group yield changes, to be honest, is also because of the introduction of a variety of low-ticket-size benefits that some of the employees and their families actually opt in for, which are not fully priced, right?

It doesn't mean that we get necessarily paid lesser for the same work compared to before. It is also the nature of benefits that are changing, right?

Somebody could actually pay incremental 1% premium and potentially get a room rent deduction waiver or copay waiver. When not everybody participates in these small-ticket-size opportunities, on the whole, it might look like the yields are compressing, but our internal metrics, we track more on the effort versus the life level remuneration, and those have been fairly healthy or improving from our side.

I think it will be very hard for me to answer that question specifically, but we'll continue to improve our disclosures so that you have a fair sense of where the world is headed.

Good morning, and thank you for taking my question. I had two questions.

The first one is slightly longer, please bear with me. On the technology side of our business, if we start pricing them at fixed-price contracts versus outcome-based pricing, won't it become very difficult to move them to outcome-based pricing later?

Because, typically, I don't see B2B contracts sort of being revised once established. Why I'm trying to understand that is, if we really have great technology and let's say it's saving ₹500, ₹1,000 crore in FWA over time for our customers, right, why won't we charge about 10% of that?

Because there's no other option to get back savings either way. They should be happy to pay for it.

That was question one. The second question was, what is the volume growth or growth in lives covered which is required in our core group business for us to be able to grow that business in the 10-12% range organically?

This is in context of most large corporates in India, IT companies, banks, etc., literally seeing no net addition in employees. I'm just curious as to what will keep that organic growth at 10-12% without that group.

Thanks. Those are the two questions.

Thank you, Manjeet. I think, like I clarified right now, that the current tech revenues that we are reporting are only for the core SaaS platform, which is a foundational end-to-end claims processing engine.

Currently, none of the AI capabilities are contributing to that revenue number. Of course, we'd like to believe that the world, especially the AI-led world, should eventually move to outcome-based pricing, because the cost of running that is nontrivial, right?

I think that's sort of directionally our view as well. I think that is a fair way to go back to the insurers, saying here are the outcomes that I can deliver, and if I deliver the outcomes, you pay for the outcome from our technology and AI and the model perspective.

In fact, I believe that a lot of AI will eventually move to that model. Currently, we don't have a contract where it's a fixed-price contract for where we can potentially deliver outcomes.

Secondly, on the organic growth side, historically, when the health insurance industry was growing at 18-19% CAGRs until about 3 years ago, group sort of led a little bit. Group was growing at about 18-19%.

Post-COVID, there was an exuberance, both in terms of the number of positions that were created, employees hired, and also the expansion of benefits to cater to hybrid, remote, different kinds of networks, different kinds of benefits. We saw over the last 5 years the highest same-store growth on an annual renewal of even 20%, 25%, compared to the pre-COVID standard growth rates that we used to see on same-store growth on 13% to 14%, right?

If you retained 5% if your churn is 5, which means 100 became 95 on renewals, on 95, we had a 13, 14 tailwinds, which sort of provided that natural same-store growth before we organically added new business. We continued to add a lot of new business organically.

In fact, last year, we added over ₹2,000 crore of new group premiums organically. Of course, they reflect depending on the time of the year at which the account is added.

Coming back to your question on the growth, from the highs of 25-odd percent post-COVID we saw it decline to a 18, 15, closer to 12, 13, now tracking to maybe 8% to 10% on the same-store growth blended. I think that's what we are currently seeing.

It's fair to ask that, with the IT/ITES slowdown and some of the large enterprises slowdown, what's actually happening. It is not that the other industries are not picking up from a lives perspective, right?

Other industries are definitely picking up. In fact, we have over 25 industries in our book today.

The reason why IT/ITES stands out is one is the sheer number, and two is the size of the benefit, right? The per-unit or per-employee benefit or the ticket size is fairly high in the IT and ITES business.

You need many more of, say, a manufacturing jobs to match the ticket size. We're seeing some very interesting growth trends, for example, in oil and gas, to chemical, to some of the other industries, and some amount of manufacturing that we've been able to take our services to are reasonably augmenting from a lives growth perspective.

The reason you don't see that translate into premiums right now is the differences in the ticket sizes. We think that the lives growth is reasonably secular across if you combine all of the groups together.

Got it. Thanks.

Satish, just one more question was, you mentioned something called headcount-based contracts in one of the responses. I just wanted to understand how does this headcount-based contract really play out?

To your other point on saying that AI does not really impact this piece on automation, etc., the long answer you gave was very helpful, but, typically, where there is headcount-based sort of contracts, savings on that because of AI is typically asked back by customers. I'm just confused about those two datapoints.

If you could clarify on both these.

No, no, a very fair point. Let me make it a little clearer.

I think if you look at our business today, I would first split this into where contractually we are supposed to deploy headcount, which is like the public health or the government business today. Right, nearly a third of our headcount today is contractually obligated and deployed at the remotest corners of the country, serving 27 crore of members through public health schemes today, right?

There is no technology, there's no AI. It's our duty as a leader to participate and deliver services.

Of course, we continue to be careful about the quality of revenue and various other aspects, and that's why we continue to be a material player, but not actually have that business create any kind of a drag for us in the overall margin profile. I think where I was saying that some of it is headcount driven today in the core TPA business, it's also because the existing expectations of the workflows of the industry, right?

The workflows of the industry today expect that a doctor and their registration number and there's a seal and signature when you send a claim file to an insurance company today, or you have corporates today, because they don't yet have a fully integrated digital experience, expect that an account manager sits out of their office and delivers service today. There are some aspects of the core business that are still driven by headcount.

If you look at our employee benefits cost that we report as a percentage of revenue, I think last year was among the highest as the integration process started, but otherwise, typically, we've been around 45%. Even if I unwind some of the other services that potentially could be treated as EB, we will not be more than 50%.

Most TPAs that we acquired had headcount costs in the range of, say, 65% to 75% of revenues, right? That's what our technology is already enabling us to differentiate.

I think the limited point that I made, that for AI to make impact, it is the quality of inputs and your ability to sort of standardize, homogenize inputs, and flag off outliers is way more important than just deploying guessing through AI on the outcome of a claim, because claim is significantly a rule-driven that we already sorted out within the platform.

Hi. Am I audible?

Just give me a second. Hello.

Am I audible now?

Wonderful. Good morning, team, and congrats for a strong set of numbers.

A couple of questions, actually one. When do we expect the Paramount acquisition to integrate and for you to get your desired synergies?

Do you have a sort of a visibility on which quarters should that sort of start panning out? Hey,

Tarang. We've always said for every integration, at the risk of sounding repetitive, that 4 to 5 quarters is what it takes, given the nature of the 12-month-long contracts and mandatory annual renewals.

We're 3 quarters down, and I think our quarterly margins in Q4 also went up by another 130 bps compared to Q3. I think we still track to it being 1 or 2 quarters at the most from a Paramount perspective.

I think that's the simple answer there.

Okay. Thank you.

Much appreciate the disclosures. Really helpful.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Tarang.

Yeah.

Hi. Thank you for the opportunity.

Very good morning to you all. I had two questions.

First question is, in the past quarter, we had an exceptional item. What's the update on the recovery?

The second question I have was on the nature of international business, where we had an impact because of the Middle East conflict. Have we seen any impact because of it, and what side of a quarter lag are we likely to see in the revenues because of it?

That's it, sir.

Sure. I'll take the international question.

Let me just take a short edit. If you need more details, Sandeep can chime in.

I think those exceptional items that we've provided, they still continue to be open items, including our insurance claims to the claims to still out item continue to be open. We will of course carry that each quarter until it comes to a logical conclusion.

Yeah. They are part of the disclosures in the financial accounts and the notes.

On the Middle East conflict, we have no real exposure to Middle East today. Our revenues, we significantly operate in Continental Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Southeast Asia, and inbound and outbound from India, with some amount of work in the US.

We have little or no exposure today to what's happening from a conflict perspective. I think the only slowdown that we saw in the international business was on the group segment where, like the IT/ITES companies reducing headcounts in India, there've been also some amount of patterns that have changed in terms of medium- and long-term deployments of their employees abroad.

In fact, in some ways, I wouldn't say negatively impacted, but because the premiums are going up, we serve some of the seafarers across the globe today. There is some operational challenges there, but we currently don't see from a revenue and any kind of a negative impact perspective.

Okay. Thank you.

That answers my question. In terms of this international business, though, is there any specific region that we are focusing on or targeting?

We've just opened up in Thailand that way. Is there any specific area that we're looking to target in the coming future, let's say?

Not a broad-term target in that sense.

I think on international, we're fairly clear that we're not trying to replicate what we do in India. We are predominantly taking our technology and other capabilities to those markets.

At this point, I think, we see regions like Southeast Asia having the most similar workflows and processes, and sort of quicker deployment cycles for the technology stack that we have available.

Okay. Fair.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you all for joining us early this morning, and thank you for all the insightful questions.

Truly appreciate your partnership and feedback. As a company that has no peer or a comparable in the markets, we will strive to improve our disclosures and strive to improve the explanation how we run our business, what the opportunities are.

Thanks again for shaping some of the narratives with your insightful questions. I think as we close, we are truly excited as Medi Assist that we are able to deliver a technology platform that's typically not seen in most markets.

As most solutions today target one of the stakeholders, right, you build solutions for insurers, you build solutions for hospitals, you build solutions and digital journeys for members. We are in a unique place where tens of millions of members and millions of claims transactions allowing us to create truly interconnected intelligence platforms that are connecting all of the stakeholders in any market, and very seamlessly enabling experiences that can be enabled only when all of these stakeholders are connected extremely well.

We are excited about the opportunity, we are excited about the time and space we are in, and we are excited about our growth prospects, both in India and outside. Thank you again for your continued partnership.

Thank you.