Mr. Tan, please paste this in your blog
Today - Voices
NTUC Income’s letter (WHY NTUC Income rejected claim) failed to disclose the salient facts evident in my correspondences and email exchanges with Income’s officers. These letters are enclosed for the benefit of the Editor. As Income has confused your readers, I am compelled to straighten the record.
From the letters and emails, it is abundantly clear that when I chose to be C-warded, I had intended to claim under my CPF Medishield. In my letter dated 05/10/12, among others, I stated: …. “I refer to your
letter of 02/10/12 relating to my hospitalization claims.
Please note that my claims are against my CPF Medishield Basic which I signed on since day one of inception including when it was migrated to your company.
In all the hospitalizations I am claiming I was a C Ward patient with full subsidy. Hence there is no basis to reject my claims.
Attached please see my July letter mailed to your office which evidently may have misplaced….
My letter of 04/07/12 asked NTUC Income to process the claims under my medishield which was migrated from CPF to NTUC Income many years ago. Income was hence my service provider and it is supposed to play this role as required by CPF as “one-stop processing centre…”.
So when Income chooses to unilaterally terminate (retroactively to 01/01/12 and jeopardizing my coverage/protection) my Enhanced Incomeshield basic for frivolous reason and after a long time lag of four months, they are still my service provider (until I am informed otherwise as they did when they first “took over my policy” from CPF) . Instead of processing my claims under my Medishield, they told me to get the hospitals to re-bill to CPFB even though I have repeatedly told them that I was not aware nor in the loop when the hospital billed them under “Enhanced Incomeshield basic”. I also had no knowledge of what bills were sent and when.
To make matter confusing, I was told by their email: … “You will remain insured under Basic Medishield if you satisfy the CPF’s eligibility criteria.” Mr Pui Sr VP of Income has since inserted some mitigate in an attempt to damage-control the point I was raising about Income’s duty to check out and advise me.
Afterall until there was policy cancellation or re-nomination (my Medishield), Income is still my service provider. Together with GE, Income was keen to takeover my CPF policies and they cannot just drop the matter without the courtesy of informing me. Also in his second and last paragraph, Mr Pui mentions that Income understands that I met CPFB’s criteria. That being the case why did not Income said so upfront despite the many email exchanges; in the process causing so much anxieties to their client?
A week after my first hospitalization, an SMS advises that my claim will be processed within 14 days. After much chasing and prodding, NTUC Income replied some four months later followed in quick succession cancellation of my upgraded policy ignoring my request for delay action so as not to jeopardise my lower tier coverage. Is this the usual performance standard we are to live with?
To-date NTUC Income has yet to inform me officially that they are no longer my service provider for my CPF Medishield basic.
James Wong (Wong Chee Wah)