Someone said:
Should the MAS bans / regulates more strictly such or similar "critical year" policies.
For this case :-
"In a written judgment, the Learned Judge dismissed her claim. The judge found that the document, a policy benefit illustration, was not part of the contract. He noted that a clause in the policy booklet states that the policy and policy application constitute the agreement between Madam Zhu and AIA. This statement is mirrored in a declaration in the application form."...
Although not "a clause in the policy booklet" and therefore not a "term or condition" in contractual terms, the "policy benefit illustration" is a common instrument used by agents (who are supposed to be professionally trained) to induce parties (as consumers & layman) into purchasing such policies ... and therefore easily "misrepresented".
IMO, the plaintiff in this case was set-backed because she had represented herself in Court...she could probably have a strong case. I purchased such a policy in the 80s which was subsequently handled as a "support package" collectively ... but the same "sales techniques" seemed to have been followed through after that ...and now another case in Court when many are supposed to be already wary of such bad sales techniques.
http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130219-403050.html
Should the MAS bans / regulates more strictly such or similar "critical year" policies.
For this case :-
"In a written judgment, the Learned Judge dismissed her claim. The judge found that the document, a policy benefit illustration, was not part of the contract. He noted that a clause in the policy booklet states that the policy and policy application constitute the agreement between Madam Zhu and AIA. This statement is mirrored in a declaration in the application form."...
Although not "a clause in the policy booklet" and therefore not a "term or condition" in contractual terms, the "policy benefit illustration" is a common instrument used by agents (who are supposed to be professionally trained) to induce parties (as consumers & layman) into purchasing such policies ... and therefore easily "misrepresented".
IMO, the plaintiff in this case was set-backed because she had represented herself in Court...she could probably have a strong case. I purchased such a policy in the 80s which was subsequently handled as a "support package" collectively ... but the same "sales techniques" seemed to have been followed through after that ...and now another case in Court when many are supposed to be already wary of such bad sales techniques.
http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130219-403050.html
BI is not the basis of contract but it is used to trap the consumers and consumers make decision based on the BIs. It is becoming crappy this. Even the judge is on the side of the insurer and agents.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what constitutes a contract? Is oral agreement a contract? I heard many of these agents promised the customers that they neeed not pay after the critical year. Some agents and managers even put it in writing.
Many consumers bought it on this promise and now the judge says it is not binding contract.
Consumers are losers indeed. They are at the mercy of insurers and agents, both out to cheat them.
Can't believe the Judge could mollycoddle the Insurers and their Agents to this extent.
ReplyDeleteGranted an oral agreement may not be binding legally speaking, but what about those written in black and white by Agents and Managers.
Better to stay clear of all Insurance Agents, same as daylight robbers.