The purpose of insurance is to pay claims, especially for legitimate claims. It is not to make excessive profit for the insurance company. In some countries, it is illegal for an insurance company to reject a claim for unjustified reasons. If they wish to cite "non-disclosure", they need to have reasonable grounds. As the situation seem to be quite bad in Singapore, it is best for consumers to avoid changing insurers or to avoid upgrading of Shield plans.
The behavior of the insurance company is bad in another respect. Even if they are entitled to reject the claim, it is still their duty to pay the Medishield portion of the claim, as this cover is supposed to continue from one insurer to another, and from one plan to another. By rejecting the claim, the insurance company is failing in its duty to treat its customer fairly.
If you are caught in this situation, and your claim is unfairly rejected, you have the following options:
- Lodge a complaint to FIDREC (www.fisca.sg) for your claim to be mediated or adjudicated
- Write a letter to the newspaper to complain about the unfair rejection
You can read several stories about unfair rejection of Shield claims in my website. Go to www.tankinlian.com/ask.aspx and search for 'Rejection" or "Shield".
Tan Kin Lian
4 comments:
The correct link should be http://www.fidrec.com.sg
Dear Mr Tan
It is so disheartening and discouraging to read about such problems faced by the consumers. Before I read this article, I have been reading on medishield and private shield plans. And I was about to contact my agent to amend all my family's 4 shield policies from Plan A to Enhanced shield basic. We have been under Plan A for many years. Now I am more confused after reading because I am not sure if I should continue with my current Plan A or to upgrade to the enhanced shield basic. Do you mean that every change in plan will require new disclosure? Even if it is with the same insurer? Thanks for your input.
Lodge complaint to FIDREC is useless I think.
I have gone through FIDREC over the minibond saga, verdict is zero compensation.
They are very high handed, they are basing very much on what we have signed during purchase therefore legally we are going in at our own risk.
They completely ignore the fact that the product is toxic and designed to fool the investor, thus they are on the side of the big companies.
I believe Mr Tan has the feedback how many (or rather how few) people succeed with compensation via FIDREC.
FIDREC - Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre Ltd website is http://www.fidrec.com.sg/
FISCA - Financial Services Consumers Association of Singapore website is http://www.fisca.sg
Please don't mix these two organisation up.
Post a Comment