I asked him to get the reply in writing. From my understanding, a policy should be allowed to be revived within a few years, as long as the policyholder is able to provide evidence of good health. In this case, the lapsation was due to an oversight, due to poor service by the agent and the office in not reminding the policyholder.
In the policy condition, there is a provision for an automatic premium loan or for a paid up policy. These options should be explained to the policyholder. It was not done, as my friend was not told about them.
Sometimes, the agent wanted to get the policyholder to take up a new policy to replace the old policy. This could be a reason why they said that the policy cannot be revived.
In my friend's case, he called the office. I wonder if the customer service office is also adopting the same approch, to get the policyholder to take up a new policy? If this is the case, it will be unethical and against the interest of the policyholder.
This could be another example of taking the policyholder "for a ride". By getting the reply in writing, it will be possible for the policyholder to lodge a complaint with FIDREC or with MAS.
Tan Kin Lian