INSURANCE ACTUARIES: Just How Much Fraud Is There?


Let’s start off with a simple explanation of why fraud costs us all money. Insurance companies employ math-geeks called actuaries. They spend their time estimating how many traffic accidents there are likely to be and how much all the claims will be worth in a year. That total is divided among all the policy holders as the premium. It’s all guesswork but they are good guessers. Except that, when thousands of people make false claims, the insurers suddenly find themselves short of money to pay out. The result? Premium rates go up for all.

How bad is the problem? In New York, the number of suspected cases of fraud has risen by one-third from 2007 through 2009. Across the state, the insurers identified 13,433 probable cases of fraud in 2009 alone. To pay for this, the premium rates rose by an average of 6.3% in 2009. The most common frauds are staging an accident to claim medical expenses. This has caused the average value of each claim to rise to more than double the national average. That’s millions of dollars paid out and millions of dollars that have to replaced in the capital reserves. This problem is not, of course, unique to New York. It has become a well-recognized way of raising cash as the recession has deepened. So, if people find their household budgets under pressure, they can report their vehicle stolen or become the victim in a phantom hit-and-run. Ah, but you are saying all this needs support from attorneys and physicians prepared to push claims knowing or suspecting their clients are faking or exaggerating. Well, let’s keep this real. The FBI and local law enforcement agencies regularly run undercover sting operations to catch the fraudulent. In Philadelphia, for example, a recent operation resulted in long jail terms for an attorney and thirty-four individuals falsely claiming millions based on fake medical evidence. In Santa Clara County, California, the police recently prosecuted more than twenty body shops for supplying false estimates to insurance companies. An undercover officer driving an undamaged Honda Civic explained he had reported the vehicle vandalized to pay for a new paint job. The body shops supplied an estimate under $3,000 — insurance companies do not inspect damage for “small” claims.

The truth is there’s an epidemic of fraud and it’s not only established criminals or those on the fringe of legality like street racers. But, sadly, it’s also becoming a mom-and-pop crime. Why? Because the cost of investigating every claim as possible fraud is too expensive for the insurers. It’s cheaper to pay out all the smaller claims and absorb the losses. This is one of the main reasons why it’s getting harder to find cheap auto insurance. The volume of fraud is driving up the premium rates for everyone. But there’s a secondary problem. Outside California, insurance companies still use zip codes in setting rates. Where the levels of fraud are high in some areas, the rates reflect this. So, those who live in the Bronx and Brooklyn pay more than other parts of New York because there are more fake claims. This does not mean it’s impossible to find cheap car insurance. You just have to work harder, using a site like this, to identify those insurance companies offering good discounts. As another self-help step, you could report all those you know are making false claims. If the police and FBI cannot stem the flood of fraud, it’s up to every law-abiding citizen to step up to the plate. The result will be lower premiums for all.

by: Norris Rios

http://article-niche.com

Advertisements

Banking and Politics in Fraud – Fall of the Giant: Banco Intercontinental (or BANINTER


This is an interesting piece of Fraud case listed on Wikipedia that catches our attention upon how the econo-political environment of a country can damage giant business entitites

Banco Intercontinental (or BANINTER) was the second largest privately held commercial bank in the Dominican Republic before collapsing in 2003 in a spectacular fraud tied to political corruption. The resulting deficit of more than US$2.2 billion was equal to 12% to 15% of the Dominican national gross domestic product.[1] The size of the bank meltdown and the mishandling of it by the administration of former President Hipólito Mejía contributed materially to the Dominican economy entering a prolonged steep decline. However, the underlying fraudulent bookeeping and political influence peddling had been ongoing for many years and through the administrations of all major Dominican political parties. Current President Leonel Fernández had previously been hired as an outside counsel for the bank.[citation needed]

Ramón Báez Figueroa and expansion of BANINTER

Banco Intercontinental was created in 1986 by Ramón Báez Romano, a businessman and former Industry Minister. His oldest son, Ramón Báez Figueroa, took over the small bank and helped build it into the country’s number two private commercial bank. BANINTER grew quickly into a typical family-run conglomerate, buying up companies or controlling interests in firms that touched on nearly every aspect of Dominican life.

In the process, Báez Figueroa amassed an empire of varied businesses. Through BANINTER Group, he managed to control the country’s largest media group, including Listín Diario, the oldest and leading newspaper; four television stations, a cable television company, and more than 70 radio stations.

Báez Figueroa became a man of great influence and power. At his lavish wedding, former Presidents Joaquín Balaguer and Leonel Fernandez signed the marriage document as witnesses. In late 2000, Báez even proposed a “national economic program”, which earned him much praise from President Mejía.

“Risk, and I’m talking about calculated risk, is proper of all business and of any human activity. “Whoever doesn’t understand this can’t triumph” Báez said in a 2001 interview in a Dominican business magazine Mercado.[2].

His more than generous gifts to friends, business partners, journalists, commentators, models, beauty queens, military personnel, judges, and politicians over the years became legendary, as were his patronage for many events.[citation needed] former president Mejía got a bulletproof Lexus sports utility vehicle; so did his successor, Leonel Fernández. Colonel Pedro Julio Goico Guerrero (a.k.a. Pepe Goico), who served as Mejía’s Head of Security and who guarded former U.S. president Bill Clinton on visits to the United States, got ten solid-gold President Rolex watches worth US$15,000 each and use of a credit card that the bank would pay off.[citation needed]

Later on, Báez himself would denounce that he called a US$2.4 million credit-card fraud on the part of Colonel Pepe Goico. Although the credit card was issued in Goico’s name, it was meant solely to finance presidential trips. Instead, Báez charged, Goico and his cronies used the card for personal purchases, including planes and helicopters, luxury housing and jewelry. The “Pepe-Gate” may have been the spark, but a mountain of kindling had been piling up for years around BANINTER.

Bank crisis

BANINTER’s octopus-like acquisitiveness raised some eyebrows, as did Báez’s luxurious tastes. In 2002 he bought a US$14,600,000 yacht, the Patricia.[3][4] Moreover, Báez had personal expenses of more than US$1,000,000 monthly.[citation needed].

Speculation about the source of Báez’s fortune ran wild, but nobody considered the explanation being given nowadays by the Dominican authority, that Báez was robbing his own bank.

Rumors that BANINTER might’ve been in trouble began circulating during the fall of 2002, and depositors started to withdraw their savings. The Dominican Central Bank stepped in to support the bank by providing new lines of credit. Anxious for a permanent solution, the government announced in early 2003 that Banco del Progreso, run by Pedro Castillo Lefeld, the brother of Mejía’s son-in-law, would acquire BANINTER. But Banco del Progreso abruptly withdrew from the deal. Government officials said that two-thirds of the money that customers had deposited in BANINTER was kept off its official books by a custom-designed software system.

On April 7, 2003, the government took control of BANINTER. Báez Figueroa’s family owned more than the 80% of the bank, and soon after, a deeper examination supported by the International Monetary Fund and the Inter-American Development Bank, revealed the scale of the meltdown.

Báez Figueroa was arrested on May 15, 2003 along with BANINTER vice presidents Marcos Báez Cocco and Vivian Lubrano de Castillo, the secretary of the Board of Directors, Jesús M. Troncoso, and wealthy financier Luis Alvarez Renta, on charges of bank fraud, money laundering and concealing information from the government as part of a massive fraud scheme of more than RD$ 55 billion (USD $2.2 billion). This sum would be big anywhere, but it was overwhelming for the Dominican economy, equivalent to two-thirds of its national budget.

The resulting central bank bailout spurred a 30% annual inflation and a large increase in poverty. The government was forced to devalue the peso, triggering the collapse of two other banks, and prompting a US$600 million (euro$420 million) loan package from the International Monetary Fund.[5]

Though required by the country’s Monetary Laws to only guarantee individual deposits of up to RD$500,000 Dominican Pesos (about US$21,000 at the time) placed within the country, the Dominican Central Bank (Banco Central Dominicano) opted to guarantee all $2.2B in unbacked BANINTER deposits, regardless of the amount, or whether deposits were in Dominican Pesos or American Dollars and without apparent knowledge whether the deposits were held in the Dominican Republic or in BANINTER’s branches in the Cayman Islands and Panama. The subsequent fiscal shortfall resulted in massive inflation (42%) and the devaluation of the DOP by over 100%.

Former president Mejía and the Central Bank (Banco Central) stated that the unlimited payouts to depositors were to protect the Dominican banking system from a crisis of confidence and potential chain reaction. However, the overall consequence of the bailout was to reimburse the wealthiest of Domincan depositors, some of whom had received rates of interest as high as 27% annually, at the expense of the majority of poor Dominicans—the latter of whom would be required to pay the cost of the bailout through inflation, currency devaluation, government austerity plans and higher taxes over the coming years.

Aftermath and trial

The banking crisis ignited harsh fights over BANINTER group’s media outlets, including the prominent newspaper Listín Diario, which was temporarily seized and run by the Mejía administration following the bank collapse.[5] In 2003, TV commentator Rafael Acevedo, president of the opinion polling firm Gallup Dominicana, had said that in the BANINTER scandal “there has been much complicity at every level of society: the government, the media, the church, the military.”[2].

In November 2005, Alvarez Renta was found liable by a federal jury in Miami of civil racketeering and illegal money transfers in a conspiracy to loot BANINTER during its final months of existence. Alvarez Renta was ordered to pay $177 Million to the Dominican state. To this date, he still hasn’t paid that sum.

The main executives of BANINTER, Báez Figueroa, his cousin Marcos Báez Cocco, Vivian Lubrano, Jesús Troncoso Ferrúa, as well as the aforementioned Alvarez Renta, were prosecuted by the Dominican state for fraud and money laundering, among other criminal charges. Báez Figueroa’s main attorney is Marino Vinicio Castillo, who at the present time holds the position of President Fernandez’s Drugs Consultant.

With 350 prosecutions and defense witnesses slated to testify, ex- president Hipólito Mejía among them, the criminal proceedings against Báez Figueroa began on April 2, 2006. However, the Court decided to postpone the first hearing for May 19, 2006, accepting a motion by the defense lawyers.[6] It was prompted, as detailed at length in the trial by a scandal involving debt writeoffs and sweetheart loans or other financial deals suspected of having favored leading politicians and others.[7]

What remains most curious was that the fraud went undetected for 14 years by the country’s supposed financial gatekeepers—the Central Bank, the Superintendent of Banks and U. S. accounting company PricewaterhouseCoopers. How Báez Figueroa and his cronies were accused and some convicted of pulling it off provided a glimpse into the gift-giving and favor-swapping common between private business and top government officials in the Dominican Republic.

The first trial ended in September 2007.

Sentence and criticism

On October 21, 2007, Báez Figueroa was sentenced by a three-judge panel to 10 years in prison. Additionally, he was ordered to pay restitution and damages totalling RD$63 billion. The laundering charges were excluded, but the other suspected mastermind of the fraud, Luis Alvarez Renta, was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison for money laundering.[8] Marcos Báez Cocco, ex-vicepresident of the Bank, was also found guilty, and sentenced to 8 years.

The accusations against two other defendants, former BANINTER executive Vivian Lubrano, as well as the secretary of BANINTER Board of Directors Jesús M. Troncoso, were dismissed for lack of evidence.

The sentence has been widely criticized for its severe contradictions, but more specially because it’s been alleged that the judges were pressed by “the powers that be”. Noted journalist Miguel Guerrero wrote in his column of the daily El Caribe that the defrauders of BANINTER have been protected “by a dark combination of political, economic, mediatic and ecclesiastical powers” and that the sentence was a mamotreto“.[9] In fact, Guerrero went to the extent of saying that everything was fixed beforehand, and the defendants and their lawyers knew it, as did those representing the Central Bank.

Court of Appeals and Supreme Court decisions

In February 2008, the case went to the Court of Appeals of Santo Domingo and the Court upheld the sentence against Báez Figueroa, Báez Cocco and Alvarez Renta. The decision that had favored Vivian Lubrano was reverted, and she was sentenced to five years in prison and RD$18 billion in damages. Charges against Troncoso Ferrua were definitely dropped.

In July 2008, the Dominican Supreme Court confirmed the decision against the defendants.[10]

Nevertheless, Lubrano allegedly fell into a “deep depression” and suffered from “panic attacks”, and she never went to prison. After much debate, President Leonel Fernández gave her full pardon, on December 22, 2008.[11]

References

  1. ^ DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ECONOMY THREATENED BY MASSIVE BANK FRAUD. | Company Activities & Management > Company Structures & Ownership from AllBusiness.com
  2. ^ a b Hurricane Ramoncito: how Ramon Baez and his cronies broke the Dominican Republic’s largest bank—and almost brought down the country – Top 100 Banks | Latin Trade | Find Articles at BNET.com
  3. ^ Dominican Government seeks failed bank’s assets in Grand Cayman – DominicanToday.com
  4. ^ http://powerandmotoryacht.com/megayachts/0902patricia/index.aspx Yacht Patricia
  5. ^ a b http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_on_bi_ge/dominican_bank_fraud_trial_1
  6. ^ Dominicant Today, April 3, 2006
  7. ^ http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071021/bs_nm/dominican_fraud_dc_2
  8. ^ Business finance news – currency market news – online UK currency markets – financial news – Interactive Investor
  9. ^ http://www.elcaribecdn.com/articulo_multimedios.aspx?id=141702&guid=EF04DB20333D4739BC301542550DEA80&Seccion=134 El Caribe, October 23, 2007.
  10. ^ Hoy
  11. ^ Diario Libre

External links

  • BANINTER promotion.

Exposing click fraud – The Anatomy of Online Scam


Internet marketers facing higher advertising fees on search networks are becoming increasingly concerned about a form of online fraud that was thought to have been contained years ago.

The practice, known as “click fraud,” began in the early days of the Internet’s mainstream popularity with programs that automatically surfed Web sites to increase traffic figures. This led companies to develop policing technologies touted as antidotes to the problem. But some marketing executives estimate that up to 20 percent of fees in certain advertising categories continue to be based on nonexistent consumers in today’s search industry.

News context:

What’s new:
Net marketers facing higher ad fees are becoming increasingly worried about an online practice known as “click fraud.”Bottom line:
The persistence of click fraud has exposed a fundamental weakness in the promising business of Internet search marketing, but most advertisers aren’t sure how to address the problem.

In one recent example of the problem, law enforcement officials say a California man created a software program that he claimed could let spammers bilk Google out of millions of dollars in fraudulent clicks. Authorities said he was arrested while trying to blackmail Google for $150,000 to hand over the program. He was indicted by a California jury in June.

Matt Parrella, chief of the San Jose branch of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Northern California, said that case was “not unique.” The problem “is certainly not shrinking, and we’re ready to prosecute people,” said Parrella, whose office handled the Google case.

Click fraud is perpetrated in both automated and human ways. The most common method is the use of online robots, or “bots,” programmed to click on advertisers’ links that are displayed on Web sites or listed in search queries. A growing alternative employs low-cost workers who are hired in China, India and other countries to click on text links and other ads. A third form of fraud takes place when employees of companies click on rivals’ ads to deplete their marketing budgets and skew search results.

Although the extent of click fraud is impossible to measure with any certainty, its persistence has exposed a fundamental weakness in the promising business of Internet search marketing. Google’s pending initial public offering has been widely anticipated as a barometer of online advertising and the post-apocalyptic dot-com climate in general.

“It’s hard to tell how big the problem is, but people are looking at it closer and closer as the cost of search advertising goes up,” said John Squire, vice president of business development of Coremetrics, a Web analytics firm. “Click fraud is a fin sticking out of the water: You’re not sure if it’s a great white shark or a dolphin.”

Unlike advertising in traditional media such as billboards and print publications, “cost per click” Internet ads displayed with specific keyword searches have been promoted as a definitive way for companies to gauge their exposure to potential customers. As a result, U.S. sales from advertiser-paid search results are expected to grow 25 percent this year to $3.2 billion, up from $2.5 billion in 2003, according to research firm eMarketer. From 2002 to 2003, the market rose by 175 percent.

As more advertisers have competed for desirable keywords in their industries, the cost for clicks has risen too. On average, advertisers are paying 45 cents per click this year, according to financial analysts, up from 40 cents in 2003 and 30 cents in the second quarter of 2002. In certain sectors, such as travel, legal advice and gaming, the cost can reach several dollars per click.

But marketing executives say click fraud is pervasive among affiliates of search leaders Google, Yahoo-owned Overture Services and FindWhat.com. In a typical affiliation, any Web publisher can become a partner of these large networks by displaying their paid links on a Web page or within its own search results and then share in the profits with every click.

“There’s a fatal flaw in the cost-per-click model because a ton of marketing dollars can be depleted in a fraction of a second,” said Jessie Stricchiola, president of Alchemist Media, a search-engine marketing firm based in Los Angeles that specializes in fraud protection. “Technology is continuing to be developed that can exploit this pricing model at incredibly high volumes.”

Google’s fraud squad
Google declined an interview for this report, citing the mandatory “quiet period” before its initial public offering, which is expected to raise $2.7 billion. But the company said in a statement that it has been “the target of individuals and entities using some of the most advanced spam techniques for years. We have applied what we have learned with search to the click fraud problem and employ a dedicated team and proprietary technology to analyze clicks.”

In recent documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company also acknowledged the problem as a threat to its revenue, of which 95 percent is derived from advertising. Google and other search networks provide refunds to advertisers when click fraud has been discovered.

The Anatomy of Online Clicks Scam

“If we are unable to stop this fraudulent activity, these refunds may increase,” Google said in its SEC filing. “If we find new evidence of past fraudulent clicks we may have to issue refunds retroactively of amounts previously paid to our Google Network members.”

Google and Overture employ “fraud squads,” or teams of people dedicated to fighting click schemes. But at least two marketing executives say such countermeasures are missing fraudulent clicks that are responsible for between 5 percent and 20 percent of advertising fees paid to all search networks.

Overture spokeswoman Jennifer Stephens refutes that estimate, saying that the numbers likely represent acts of fraud that are ultimately caught. She added that Overture filters most fraudulent clicks with the best antifraud system in the industry, which combines technology and human analysis.

“We take this very seriously; it’s the foundation of what we do,” Stephens said. “If an advertiser has a question about it, we look into all matters.”

Cost-per-click advertising comes in many forms, but it essentially lets marketers gain exposure on a Web site and pay only when people click on their ads. Google and Overture let advertisers bid for placement of paid links, which appear when certain keyword searches are conducted on the networks’ sites or those of third parties that partner with them. Keyword ads can also be distributed according to the content of partners’ sites and displayed on non-search pages. (CNET Networks, which publishes News.com, partners with Google for shared advertising revenue.)

Most advertisers are aware of the click-fraud issue but have not delved into it because of the technical complexities involved. Others are concerned that they could jeopardize their relationships with the powerful search networks if they complain too loudly.

“It is a bigger problem, but folks just don’t want to take the time to track it down because it’s a complex problem,” Coremetrics’ Squire said. Given that some of the largest marketers manage up to 1 million keywords in a campaign, he added, the data can be difficult to crunch.

Danny Sullivan, who runs a quarterly search-industry conference, said many advertisers do not raise their concerns with the ad networks because “they’re afraid that if they complain, it will hurt their free listings.”

Still, more fraud-detection technologies are emerging to help advertisers analyze their campaigns and traffic. Some advertisers and search-engine marketing companies say they are compiling lists of sites that generate a high number of clicks but not sales.

Coremetrics, Urchin and Whosclickingwho.com are just a few that sell technology to examine click rates and sales that result from paid searches. Alchemist Media, which charges flat fees for its consulting services, has detected fraud while acting as an intermediary between search networks and marketers.

In general, Alchemist’s Stricchiola estimates that 10 percent of all search ad clicks could be fraudulent. But she said the rate can reach 20 percent in particular businesses that have been targeted for click fraud.

Roy de Souza, CEO of advertising technology firm Zedo, said his company’s geotracking systems have traced Internet Protocol addresses to detect click operations in China. In describing one common scheme, he said a legitimate site is duplicated under another name, complete with text ads from a search network. A bot would then be trained to click on the ad links that appear on the bogus site, said de Souza, who estimated that click fraud affects 10 percent to 20 percent of today’s search network ads.

Many policing technologies can counter click fraud by analyzing Web traffic logs or surfing behavior. If a page is turned every 1.8 seconds over a period of time, for example, fraud-detecting systems will flag the traffic as suspiciously uniform.

Covert clicks
Human operations can be more difficult to detect because a wide network of people can click on ads from different computers across many regions, without a steady pattern. According to a report in the India Times, residents are being hired to click paid links from home, with the hopes of making between $100 to $200 per month.

In other instances, the source of bogus clicks can be much closer to home.

Joe, the chief executive of an Internet marketing company, enjoys clicking on his rivals’ text ads on Google and Yahoo because his competitor must pay as much as $15 each time he does it. Eventually, such phantom clicks can add up and drain a rival’s budget.

“It’s an entertainment,” said the executive, who asked to keep his name and company anonymous. “Why do you run into a store without dropping a quarter in the meter? You know it’s wrong, but you do it.”

Kevin Lee, chief executive of search marketing firm Did-It, estimates that fraud from such “drive-by” competitive clicks and affiliate scams makes up about 5 percent of the industry’s total sales. Lee concedes that he can only guess at the number, but he does know one thing for sure:

If it gets much higher, he said, “then we should all be getting worried.”

By Stefanie Olsen
Staff Writer, CNET News

Psychic powers that enable people to see auras around others may simply be a quirk of the brain


Supposed psychic powers that enable people to see auras around others may simply be a quirk of the brain, according to a University College London (UCL) study of a rare form of synaesthesia where some people see colourful ‘auras’ around their loved ones.

The case study, reported in the October issue of Cognitive Neuropsychology, shows how some people can experience colours in response to people they know or words that evoke emotions – a condition known as emotion-colour synaesthesia.

Dr Jamie Ward, author of the study, says: “A popular notion is that some people have a magical ability to detect the hidden emotions of others by seeing a colourful ‘aura’ or energy field that they give off. Our study suggests a different interpretation. These colours do not reflect hidden energies being given off by other people, rather they are created entirely in the brain of the beholder.”

In the study, Dr Ward of UCL’s Psychology Department documented a woman known as GW who could see colours like purple and blue in response to people she knew or their names when read to her. Words triggered a colour which spread across her whole field of vision, whilst people themselves appeared to have coloured ‘auras’ projected around them. For example, “James” triggered pink, “Thomas” black and “Hannah” blue.

A similar test using 100 words rated on a scale of 1 to 7 for their emotional impact showed that highly emotive words such as fear or hate also triggered colours. Words associated with positive emotions tended to elicit pink, orange, yellow, and green, whereas words associated with negative emotions triggered brown, grey, and black.

Whilst it is quite common to describe people or emotions metaphorically in terms of colours, GW actually reported vividly seeing them. Indeed, when “James” (a pink word) was written in the wrong colour (e.g. blue), her reaction times were slowed.

Synaesthesia is a condition found in 1 in 2000 people in which stimulation of one sense produces a response in one or more of the other senses. For example, people with synaesthesia may experience shapes with tastes or smells with sounds. It is thought to originate in the brain and some scientists believe it might be caused by a cross-wiring in the brain, for example between centres involved in emotional processing and smell perception. Synaesthesia is known to run in families.

GW, 19-year old with an IQ of 112, became aware of her condition around the age of seven but refrained from telling her family or friends. In GW’s case, people acquired a synaesthetic colour as she got to know them and the colour was then triggered whenever she was presented with the person’s name or face.

In contrast, a case discovered in the 1930s documents a seven year old boy who also associated colours with people, but saw strangers in bright orange with a black outline which faded to a mild blue and finally pink when he got to know them.

Dr Jamie Ward continues: “The ability of some people to see the coloured auras of others has held an important place in folklore and mysticism throughout the ages. Although many people claiming to have such powers could be charlatans, it is also conceivable that others are born with a gift of synaesthesia.

“GW does not believe she has mystical powers and has no interest in the occult, but it is not hard to imagine how, in a different age or culture, such an interpretation could arise.

“Rather than assuming that people give off auras or energy fields that can only be detected by rigged cameras or trained seers, we need only assume that the phenomenon of synaesthesia is taking place.”

Ref:  http://www.ucl.ac.uk

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/10/18/5619.aspx

Medical Magazine for Doctors and Healthcare Professionals


I’m a part of a Creative magazine specially dedicated to serve Doctors & Medical Community. It will unleash the creative genius in Doctors & Healthcare Professionals.

Here in this mag we are addressing the doctors as a creative being, trying to make them more socially responsible as well as addressing their problems. Here we publish stories, poetry, photography, artwork and like these creative thing for doctors, I mean most of the time their own creative work. They can raise their voice against any issue they are facing and we try to make them realize, how important their work is for humanity through the medium of stories and poems etc.

At the same time they are free to write about their personal experiences, research & latest happenings around Medical World. If i get your mail ID then i can forward you more about the concept.

Also we shall be providing brief but descriptive information on various usefu areas like Finance, Computers, Beauty, fashion, Automobiles, etc.

Your suggestions & opnions are welcomed.

Sohan Dhande

+91 9370150290

sohan.dhande@DGenre.com

www.DGenre.com

%d bloggers like this: