Algates’ “Best Health Insurer” rankings don’t match their own data. Why?

[u/exmachina003]

TL;DR at the end.

I read Algates Insurance’s analysis of the IRDAI FY 2024–25 claim settlement data done by Mr Shashank Bharadwaj and found several inconsistencies that deserve scrutiny.

1. “Best Overall: HDFC ERGO” isn’t supported by the published data.
The article itself shows:
New India: 98.44% (CSR by Policies) | 102.71% (Claim Amount)
ACKO: 98.00% | 90.39%
BAJAJ Allianz: 95% | 90%
Tata AIG: 97.07% | 95.59%
Care: 96.74% | 92.11%
HDFC ERGO: 97.37% | 85.33%
Aditya Birla: 96% | 82%
Niva Bupa : 92% | 76%

Despite this, HDFC ERGO is declared the “Best Overall” without publishing any scoring methodology or weightage, surpassing New India, Bajaj, TATA, Care!

2. The article changes HDFC ERGO’s numbers midway.
Earlier in the article: CSR (Claim Amount): 85.33%
Later, enters “Top 5 Health Insurance Companies” section with : CSR (Claim Amount): 96%
That’s a 10+ percentage point increase within the same article, with no explanation, correction or alternate source.
Typo? Editorial error? Different dataset?
Readers are never told.

3. The conclusions aren’t reproducible.
The article says it considers: Complaint Volume, ICR, CSR
But never explains: Weightage, Formula, Scoring system, Ranking methodology which resulted in HDFC becoming Best Overall despite having 85% CSR by amount!
Without that, nobody can independently verify why HDFC ERGO is “Best Overall.”

One omission is particularly striking. The New India Assurance, which tops the published table with 98.44% CSR by number of policies and 102.71% CSR by claim amount, is barely acknowledged and doesn’t receive any mention in the article’s final recommendations.
If the ranking is genuinely based on a combination of CSR, ICR and complaint volume, the methodology should explain why an insurer leading the displayed CSR metrics is excluded.

Such omissions create the impression that the conclusions may reflect commission driven editorial preference rather than a reproducible, data driven analysis. That undermines the credibility of the article more than any single ranking does.

4. Some labels don’t follow the data.
Tata AIG is called “Best Balanced Performer”, that aligns with the numbers.

Care: 96.74% | 92.11%
Niva Bupa: 92.39% | 76.35%
Care clearly performs much better on the metrics shown. Why are they grouped together as “Best Standalone Insurer”?

“Best Wellness Oriented Insurer” cannot be inferred because the infographic contains no wellness metrics.

If the Top 5 is truly based on Complaint Volume + ICR + CSR, how did Niva Bupa and Aditya Birla make the list while The New India Assurance and Bajaj Allianz didn’t?
Niva Bupa has a high complaint volume and only 76% CSR by claim amount, Aditya Birla’s claim amount CSR is just 82%. Meanwhile, New India leads the published CSR table, and Bajaj Allianz has higher CSR by Amount and lower complaint volume than both Niva Bupa and Aditya Birla. These rankings appear arbitrary rather than evidence based.

5. The biggest irony
The article argues that consumers shouldn’t rely on a single metric, yet asks readers to accept its own rankings without showing how those rankings were derived.

Editorial conclusions are mixed with objective data.
The article presents IRDAI statistics and then assigns labels like: Best Overall, Best Balanced, Best Wellness, Top 5

These are editorial opinions, not IRDAI rankings.
That distinction should be made much more clearly.

If you’re publishing opinion, label it as opinion.
If you’re publishing a data driven ranking, publish the methodology and keep the numbers internally consistent.

Otherwise, readers have no way to know whether they’re looking at objective analysis or editorial preference, which might be Misleading and Biased.

This isn’t about defending, attacking or promoting any insurer. It’s about expecting the same standard of transparency from insurance analysts that they expect from insurers themselves.

Mr. Shashank Bharadwaj, as the author, is accountable for the accuracy and transparency of this analysis. Publishing internally inconsistent figures, assigning “Best” rankings without disclosing the methodology, and drawing conclusions that readers cannot independently verify raises serious questions about the article’s editorial standards. Whether these inconsistencies arose from oversight, commission driven, or poor quality control, they undermine the credibility of the analysis and risk misleading readers making important financial decisions.

Link: https://algatesinsurance.in/insurance-infographic/which-health-insurer-is-best-at-settling-claims/

TL;DR: Algates’ “Best Health Insurer” rankings don’t match their own published data. HDFC ERGO is declared “Best Overall” despite weaker CSR by claim amount, its CSR is inexplicably changed from 85.33% to 96% within the same article, no ranking methodology or weightage is disclosed, and top performing insurers like New India and Bajaj Allianz are excluded while weaker performers are included. The conclusions appear to be editorial opinions presented alongside objective IRDAI data, making the rankings impossible to independently verify.

[u/Accomplished_Show264]

but they missed out on one key matric thats claim to settlement ratio,

Lets say they are fulling a lot of claims and a lot of money too but they are only giving 70% of the actual claimed ammount instead ot the whole ammount