Students should know how to market themselves, Chetan Bhagat

The Covid-19 pandemic has made an unprecedented impact on the Indian businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and startups. According to a joint survey by FICCI and Indian Angel Network (IAN), the pandemic has hit the businesses of around 70% startups.

With uncertainty in the business environment and an unexpected shift in priorities of the government as well as corporates, many startups are struggling to survive, it says.

In a nationwide survey on the 'Impact of Covid-19 on Indian Startups' involving 250 startups, 70% participants said their businesses had been impacted by Covid-19 and around 12% had shut operations.

The survey shows only 22% startups have cash reserves to meet the fixed cost expenses over the next 3-6 months, and 68% are reducing operational and administrative expenses.

Around 30% of the companies said they would retrench employees if the lockdown was extended too long. The 43% startups have already started 20-40% salary cuts over April-June.

Over 33% startups said investors had put the investment decision on hold and 10% said the deals had been scrapped. Only 8% startups had received funds as per the deals signed before Covid-19 outbreak, the survey revealed.

The reduced funding has forced startups to put a hold on business development and manufacturing activities, which has resulted in loss of projected orders.

The survey highlights the need of an urgent relief package for startups, including possible purchase orders from the government, tax relief and swifter tax refunds, and immediate fiscal support measures, including grants, soft loans and payroll grants.

Besides 250 startups, 61 incubators and investors also participated in the survey.

While 96% of investors accepted that their investments in startups had been impacted by Covid-19, 92% said their investments in startups would continue to be low over the next six months.

Around 59% investors said they would prefer to work with the existing portfolio firms in the coming months. Only 41% said they would consider new deals.

"A comparison of priority investment sectors before and during Covid-19 shows 35% investors are now looking at investments in healthcare startups, followed by EdTech, AI/Deep Tech, FinTech and Agri," said the survey.

Around 44% incubators surveyed said their day-to-day operations had been considerably hit by Covid-19. Most incubators are now supporting their portfolio firms by providing them virtual platforms to interact with mentors, investors and industries.

Dilip Chenoy, FICCI Secretary General, said, "The startup sector is stressed for survival at the moment. The investment sentiment is also subdued and is expected to remain so in the coming months. Lack of working capital and cash flows may lead to major layoffs over the next 3-6 months."

Indian startups needed an enabling ecosystem and flow of funds to continue operations, the survey said.

Padmaja Ruparel, President, Indian Angel Network & Co-Chair of FICCI Startup Committee, said, "In these uncertain times, as investors, we must play an important role to provide the Indian startups funding, mentoring and hand-holding support to stay afloat and come out at the other end of this crisis."

To that end, IAN recently announced a debt fund to help IAN portfolio companies raise working capital and ensure business continuity by partnering with debt providers.

This must be replicated on a wider scale, so a larger number of startups are provided the capital support to make it during these tough times, Ruparel said.

Consumer watchdog Which? has claimed that more than one billion Android phones and tablets are vulnerable to hackers as they no longer supported by security updates.

According to the research report, the most at-risk phones are any that run Android 4 or older and those smartphones running Android 7.0 which can not be updated are also at risk.

Based on data from Google analysed by Which?, two in five android device users around the world are no longer receiving the important updates. Currently, those devices are unlikely to have issues, but the lack of security leaves them open to attack.

"It is very concerning that expensive Android devices have such a short shelf life before they lose security support, leaving millions of users at risk of serious consequences if they fall victim to hackers," Kate Bevan editor Which? said in a statement.

"Google and phone manufacturers need to be upfront about security updates with clear information about how long they will last and what customers should do when they run out. The government must also push ahead with planned legislation to ensure manufacturers are far more transparent about security updates for smart devices and their impact on consumers," Kate added.

Android phone released around 2012 or earlier, including popular models like the Samsung Galaxy S3 and Sony Xperia S, are particularly at risk to hackers.

Which? has made suggestions to Android users on what to consider if they have an older phone that may be at risk.

Any Android device which is more than two years old, check whether it can be updated to a newer version of the operating system. If it is on an earlier version than Android 7.0 Nougat, try to update via Settings> System>Advanced System update.

In case a user is not able tto update the phone, the device could be at risk of being hacked if it is running a version of Android 4 or lower.

A user also need to be careful about downloading apps outside the Google Play store and should also install a mobile anti-virus via an app.

Mumbai, Jun 27: The Bombay High Court observed that COVID-19 patients from poor and indigent sections cannot be expected to produce documentary proof to avail subsidised or free treatment while getting admitted to hospitals.

The court on Friday was hearing a plea filed by seven residents of a slum rehabilitation building in Bandra, who had been charged ₹ 12.5 lakh by K J Somaiya Hospital for COVID-19 treatment between April 11 and April 28.

The bench of Justices Ramesh Dhanuka and Madhav Jamdar directed the hospital to deposit ₹10 lakh in the court.

The petitioners had borrowed money and managed to pay ₹10 lakh out of ₹12.5 lakh that the hospital had demanded, after threatening to halt their discharge if they failed to clear the bill, counsel Vivek Shukla informed the court.

According to the plea, the petitioners were also overcharged for PPE kits and unused services.

On June 13, the court had directed the state charity commissioner to probe if the hospital had reserved 20% beds for poor and indigent patients and provided free or subsidised treatment to them.

Last week, the joint charity commissioner had informed the court that although the hospital had reserved such beds, it had treated only three poor or indigent persons since the lockdown.

It was unfathomable that the hospital that claimed to have reserved 90 beds for poor and indigent patients had treated only three such persons during the pandemic, advocate Shukla said.

He further argued that COVID-19 patients, who are in distress, cannot be expected to produce income certificate and such documents as proof.

However, senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas, who represented the hospital, said the petitioners did not belong to economically weak or indigent categories and had not produced documents to prove the same.

A person who is suffering from a disease like COVID-19 cannot be expected to produce certificates from a tehsildar or social welfare officer before seeking admission in the hospital, the bench noted and asked the hospital to deposit ₹10 lakh in court within two weeks.