The purpose of insurance is to cover losses due to unexpected events. These are accidents and are not intentional.
Most people driving on the road do not wish to have an accident as it would lead to loss of life, injury or property damage. Sometimes, they are not careful and may miss or misjudge the timing of a red light. This is how an accident happens.
When they meet with an accident, they already pay a heavy price, through the payment of the Excess and the loss of the No Claim Discount. This can amount to a big financial loss, especially to a person on a tight budget.
Do they regret their carelessness? Of course, they do. This is how people learn through experience.
The purpose of insurance is to cover these types of unexpected events. It is not the duty of the insurance company to "punish" the driver, and act like the prosecutor and judge. Any such punishment should be left to the relevant people, who are trained in such matters.
Is it right for the insurance company to reject the renewal of the insurance and to impose an excessive loading to recover their loss? This is a separate issue.
If I were the regulator, I would impose certain conditions on what is fair, and what is unfair. If an insurance company behave unfairly to consumers, they should not have the licence to transact insurance business. This is not just a business - as there are responsibilities to the public to act in a fair manner.
Most people driving on the road do not wish to have an accident as it would lead to loss of life, injury or property damage. Sometimes, they are not careful and may miss or misjudge the timing of a red light. This is how an accident happens.
When they meet with an accident, they already pay a heavy price, through the payment of the Excess and the loss of the No Claim Discount. This can amount to a big financial loss, especially to a person on a tight budget.
Do they regret their carelessness? Of course, they do. This is how people learn through experience.
The purpose of insurance is to cover these types of unexpected events. It is not the duty of the insurance company to "punish" the driver, and act like the prosecutor and judge. Any such punishment should be left to the relevant people, who are trained in such matters.
Is it right for the insurance company to reject the renewal of the insurance and to impose an excessive loading to recover their loss? This is a separate issue.
If I were the regulator, I would impose certain conditions on what is fair, and what is unfair. If an insurance company behave unfairly to consumers, they should not have the licence to transact insurance business. This is not just a business - as there are responsibilities to the public to act in a fair manner.
Unfortunately, the sole purpose of insurance is to provide an opportunity for insurance agents , their managers and their CEOs to make a living out of the customers. The customers are the cash cows that provide the cash flows for these agents, the managers and the CEOs to feed their families, to maintain their lifestyle,to drive the posh cars and condos.
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of anything about helping the consumers to plan and achieve their financial goals.And it is showing. Singaporeans are grossly under insured and as many as 80% are not ready and can retire. Ask the baby boomers if they can retire. What they got are insurance products that have been eaten up by inflation and rotten returns.
I hope, MAS will redefine the roles
insurance companies and the banks and their army of conscienceless and incompetent salesmen.