MAM
TV channels paid, TAM officials accepted bribes: NDTV’s whistleblower
Mumbai: Some television channels pay bribes to have their viewership ratings falsely boosted. Those who help the television channels in subverting the ratings system are the ones who are supposed to be the flag bearers of the television ratings agency’s noble duties.
These are the allegations made by broadcaster New Delhi Television Ltd (NDTV) in its lawsuit in New York against Nielsen, Kantar, their Indian joint venture TAM and their senior officials.
The basis of the allegations is revelations by a consultant, who provided on ground services to TAM. NDTV claims the revelations were made at a meeting of NDTV, Nielsen and Kantar officials on 20 January 2012. Robert Messemer, chief security officer at The Nielsen Company, was also present at the meeting.
NDTV has referred to the unidentified consultant as the whistleblower. A whistleblower is a person who reports illegal activities going on in an organisation. But the consultant is, in fact, an approver having admitted to accepting bribes himself. The consultant said he accepted bribes from TV channels and in turn paid bribes to TAM officials and to some of the people who have allowed TAM to install peoplemeters at their homes.
According to the lawsuit, the whistleblower consultant told the officials present that he was even successful in bribing TAM officials to have a peoplemeter installed at his home. The norms disqualify the consultant from having a peoplemeter deployed as the consultant belonged to the television industry.
NDTV said the 20 January meeting was also attended by Piyush Mathur, president, India region, The Nielsen Company.
NDTV subsequently said that at a meeting on 11 April 2012, the representatives of Nielsen and Kantar had “unequivocally admitted” that the information provided by whistleblower consultant was highly credible.
NDTV has supported its claim of television channels paying a bribe through the admissions of an unnamed employee of a broadcaster that indulged in illegal gratification. It said on 24 February 2012, (the employee of) a broadcaster, whom it did not identify, met NDTV officials Rahul Sood and Kirandev Hiremath.
The broadcaster employee told the NDTV officials that “his channel was involved in corrupt practices to fix ratings.” He even named a cable operator from Hassan in Karnataka, who acted as a consultant for fixing ratings for his channel.
To support its allegation that TAM officials were prone to manipulation, it has referred to a meeting its representatives — Rahul Sood, Sidharth Barhate and Anand Mohan Jha – had with two field staff members of TAM on 3 April 2012 at Ramada Plaza Hotel at Juhu in Mumbai. NDTV has not named the two employees in its lawsuit.
NDTV claimed the TAM employees told its officials that they were willing to manipulate TAM ratings in Mumbai. The two employees claimed to have manipulated ratings for other channels in the past and were willing provide the same “services” for “any” channel that was ready to pay the demanded consideration (bribe).
They were confident that they could triple channel ratings of NDTV in Mumbai over a period of two to three weeks in the required target group. They said by paying a bribe of $250 to $500 per household per month, the TAM households could be made to watch only those channels which they insisted upon.
NDTV said the Ramada Plaza meeting was viewed by an external surveillance agency, which took photographs of the employees. Those photographs were shown to Bob Messemer in New Delhi on 27 April 2012.
On 11 and 12 April, NDTV said its representatives were provided information by Nielsen and Kantar officials that there were cases of several field employees who had refused promotions for last few years simply because at their current positions their alternate source of income was higher than what their salary would be on being promoted.
Nielsen’s security chief had admitted that proper security practices were not being followed by TAM and that theft and leakage of data was rampant. He had also admitted that in India, the entire system was corrupt from top to bottom, NDTV claimed.
Subsequent to the meetings held in New Delhi in April 2012, Puliyel, a director on the Board of TAM and a Kantar official, wrote an “evasive” email on 19 April to NDTV, with copy to Piyush Mathur of The Nielsen Company, merely mentioning that there had been a board meeting of TAM and they were doing some additional analysis on reporting samples by channels to examine the threshold for reporting and frequency of reporting, etc.
NDTV said there was no mention in the email whether the TAM board had even considered stopping the release of “what had now been confirmed” as corrupt television viewership data, as was agreed at the meetings held on 11 and 12 April.
These instances, if proved to be true, would mean TAM did little to weed out corruption despite years of efforts of NDTV. TAM would have also violated the Nielsen Code written in 1931. Impartiality, thoroughness, accuracy, integrity, economy, price, delivery and service are the hallmarks of the code.
When you plan to buy medical insurance for your family, the first question is often about savings. You may assume that buying online automatically means paying less, but that is only part of the picture. The real issue is not just whether the premium looks lower, but whether the policy gives you suitable family health insurance without adding avoidable costs later.
Buying online can sometimes appear more budget-friendly because you can compare plans, review features, and complete the process without depending entirely on offline assistance.
Still, a lower visible price does not always mean better value. To understand whether you can truly save more, you need to look at the full buying experience and the policy terms together.
Why Online Purchase Can Look More Economical
When you explore family health insurance online, you usually get access to plan details in a more direct and organised way. This can make the buying journey feel simpler and more transparent.
A few reasons online purchases may seem cost-effective include:
● Easier comparison of policy features
● Direct access to premium details
● The ability to review inclusions and exclusions at your own pace
● Fewer chances of making a rushed decision
● More control over the plan selection process
This does not mean every online option is automatically cheaper. It simply means the online route may help you assess choices more carefully, and that itself can influence how much value you get from the policy you choose.
Saving Money is Not Only About a Lower Premium
A lower premium often catches your attention first, but that should not be the only measure of savings. If you buy medical insurance based only on what looks affordable at the start, you may overlook conditions that matter later.
A family health insurance policy should be judged on overall value, including:
● The scope of cover
● Waiting period terms
● Exclusions
● Room eligibility conditions
● Sub-limits, if any
● Claim-related terms
● Renewal conditions
If the premium is lower but the policy has stricter internal conditions, the apparent saving may not feel meaningful when you actually need hospitalisation support.
So, the better question is not only whether online purchase costs less, but whether it helps you select a plan that remains financially sensible over time.
Comparing Plans Online Can Prevent Overspending
One clear advantage of the online route is that it allows you to compare different options without pressure. This can help you avoid paying for features you may not need or missing features that matter for your family.
Before you buy medical insurance online, look closely at:
● Who can be covered under the plan
● How the sum insured works for the family
● Whether day care procedures are included
● How pre-existing illness rules are explained
● Whether add-ons are optional or built in
● How clearly the policy wording is presented
This level of comparison can support better decision-making. In many cases, savings come not only from the premium itself but from choosing a policy with fewer surprises.
Online Discounts Should be Viewed Carefully
Online discounts can make a plan look attractive, but they should always be read alongside the policy details. A discount may reduce the upfront cost, yet the true worth of the policy depends on what it covers and how it responds during a claim.
When reviewing discounted online plans, check whether the policy has:
● Treatment-specific limits
● Room rent restrictions
● Co-payment clauses
● Disease-wise waiting periods
● Claim deductions linked to the hospital category
● Limited cover for selected benefits
These points are important because a policy that looks cheaper at purchase may involve more out-of-pocket spending later. That is why discount-led buying should be replaced with detail-led buying.
Final Thoughts
Yes, buying online can sometimes help you save more when choosing family health insurance, but only if you look beyond the headline price. The online route may give you better visibility, easier comparison, and more time to review the policy terms.
That can support smarter choices and may reduce the chances of paying for a plan that does not suit your family well.
If you want to buy medical insurance online, treat savings as more than a discount. The real advantage lies in choosing family health insurance that balances affordability, clarity, and meaningful coverage for your household.
