Rilek1Corner

Tag: insurance

  • Cancer Patient Thought Her Insurance Agent-Friend Had Her Fully Covered, She Was Wrong

    Cancer Patient Thought Her Insurance Agent-Friend Had Her Fully Covered, She Was Wrong

    Colon cancer patient Lily Ng, 62, had a rude shock when her insurer AIA Singapore offered to pay only a fraction – or $75,000 – of her hospitalisation claim of $320,000.

    AIA alleged that she failed to state her diabetic condition when she upgraded her AIA hospitalisation plan two years ago. All consumers have a duty to disclose information that will affect insurance terms.

    Madam Ng bought an AIA HealthShield Gold Max C plan – which covers hospitalisation in B1 wards in government hospitals on an as-charged basis – in 2000. Back then, she was not diabetic, but developed the condition about five years ago.

    Two years ago, her AIA agent and friend of 30 years recommended that she upgrade to an AIA HealthShield Gold Max A plan, together with a rider, to enjoy first-dollar coverage for future private hospitalisation bills. The upgrade was confirmed in January last year. The annual premium for the plan is $2,790.

    With that assurance, Madam Ng was warded at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in April this year when she was diagnosed with colon cancer, racking up $320,000 in hospitalisation bills. She was in and out of hospital between April and September.

    Amid the trauma of undergoing operations and cancer treatment, she had a double whammy when AIA informed her that it would reimburse her only $75,000 based on the terms of her previous C plan.

    AIA had rejected her claim under her upgraded A plan because it alleged that Madam Ng failed to disclose that she has diabetes when she completed her “Change Form” document to effect the upgrade.

    Madam Ng said: “I was very stressed and angry. I paid for the upgraded policy and did not get the coverage that I paid for. I was at a loss on how my bills would be settled. It is a huge sum.”

    The family complained to the insurer and then to the authorities.

    During the claims investigation process, AIA later learnt that the agent was the one who completed the form and provided false information which was not given by Madam Ng.

    She had been unable to check whether the information given by the agent on her behalf was correct as she is not literate in English.

    Madam Ng recalled that she had even asked her agent whether she needed to go for a medical test as part of the upgrade, but was told it was unnecessary.

    The agent had asked her to sign the “Change Form” document but failed to run through the document thoroughly with her, including obtaining her answers for three health-related questions.

    Instead, the agent had ticked “no” to each of them, indicating that Madam Ng had no medical issues.

    Last month, AIA approved Madam Ng’s claim of $320,000 on the grounds that the agent had not “adhered to AIA’s standards” and said that it has taken disciplinary action against her.

    When contacted, AIA said that protecting its customers’ interests is a top priority.

    AIA said: “We have a zero-tolerance policy with regard to misconduct by our AIA financial services consultants and expect them to adhere to the highest ethical and industry standards. We have carried out a review and taken the necessary disciplinary action for this isolated case.

    “AIA encourages policyholders to go through the necessary forms with their representatives to ensure that all information is accurate and complete. This will help to avoid any subsequent complications.”

    The insurer added that it will continue to enhance its internal procedures and forms where relevant, to ensure that policyholders’ interests are always safeguarded.

    It declined to give details on how the agent had been penalised.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Admin Executive Paid Yearly Insurance Premiums Higher Than Annual Pay

    Admin Executive Paid Yearly Insurance Premiums Higher Than Annual Pay

    An endowment insurance plan bought two years ago by Madam Corinne Han has proved a costly mistake.

    The Prudential policy, which Madam Han, 57, bought at United Overseas Bank (UOB), requires her to pay yearly premiums higher than her annual pay.

    She told The Straits Times that her intention in visiting UOB in 2013 was to open an account and inquire about fixed deposits. Instead, she ended up purchasing the policy that came with freebies like an air-fryer and a steamer.

    Madam Han, an administrative executive with O-level education, earns about $30,000 a year, but the policy requires her to fork out an annual premium of $40,000 for five years, translating to total premiums of $200,000. So far, she has paid $80,000.

    Back in 2013, when she visited UOB, she had $350,000 on hand due to a divorce settlement.

    But after accounting for legal fees and loan payments, she would be left with about $100,000, insufficient to pay for the total premiums of $200,000.

    As she was staying with her mother at the time, she rented out three rooms in her HDB flat. This gave her a combined monthly rental income of $2,000 in 2013. It has since dropped to about $1,000.

    This is how the PruSave Max Limited Pay plan works.

    At the end of the 10-year maturity period, Madam Han is projected to receive a maturity benefit of $236,000 – that is, a potential gain of $36,000 – if Prudential can earn 4.75 per cent on its investments.

    By then, the value of the accumulated premiums, based on the illustrated rate of 4.75 per cent, would have grown to $291,172.

    However, the “Effect of Deduction” (EOD) would amount to about $55,000, which leaves a non-guaranteed maturity sum of $236,000 to Madam Han. The EOD – which is due to Prudential – includes the cost of insurance, distribution cost, expenses and surrender charge.

    If Prudential’s investment return is 3.25 per cent, the maturity benefit is projected to be $217,768.

    However, both the projected maturity figures of $236,000 and $217,768 are non-guaranteed.

    The figures are used by the insurer for illustrative purposes, something that may be the source of confusion as the maturity benefits may be misconstrued to be between these two rates of returns.

    The figure that is guaranteed, as indicated in the policy’s benefit illustration, is actually $181,000 – a sum that is lower than the total premiums Madam Han would have coughed up for the plan.

    The plan she has comes with a death benefit of 105 per cent, which means the policy provides negligible protection.

    Endowment plans typically are savings plans that come with insurance protection which, in this case, is nominal. Customers pay premiums over a fixed period and, typically, a small portion of the premiums is deducted to pay for insurance cover. The rest is invested. So most customers would expect to get their money back, plus interest, when the endowment policy expires.

    “I didn’t know that I may get back less than $236,000, which I believed was guaranteed,” says Madam Han.

    The policy documents state that it is not a savings account and that the actual benefits are not guaranteed.

    There is still the question of how Madam Han ended up buying this plan.

    After paying for two years, she now faces financial difficulty in paying future premiums. UOB has informed her that the annual premiums could be reduced, but she would have to forgo the excess premiums that were paid in the first two years.

    This means that if she pays a reduced annual premium of, say, $20,000 for the remaining three years, she will forgo the excess $40,000 that was paid in the first two years.

    Madam Han has complained to UOB and wants to surrender the policy and recover her premiums.

    A UOB spokesman told The Straits Times: “We will be arranging a meeting with Madam Han to clarify and address the matter with her.”

    Madam Han has four children, aged 20 to 27. Two of them have not completed their formal education.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Malays In Singapore Are Most Unhealthy

    Malays In Singapore Are Most Unhealthy

    According to the latest statistics released by the national disease registry, Malays in Singapore are the most unhealthy in terms of the rates of illnesses such as diabetes, kidney failure, heart attacks and strokes.

    Malays make up only 13.5% of Singapore’s total population but they account for 24.4% of all patients receiving dialysis.

    Dialysis is one of two possible treatments for end-stage kidney disease. The other option is transplant. The total proportion of Malays who have undergone kidney transplants also increased from 8.5% in 2003 to 10.1% last year as well.

    The rates of stroke was also higher in Malays with men up to 1.5 time more likely to suffer a stroke than their Chinese counterparts. This is based on age-standardised statistics.

    Malays also have the highest rate of heart attacks of all the races and this was attributed to generally higher cholesterol and hypertension rates.

    Another contributing factor was that Malays tend to be less aware of their own conditions compared with other races meaning that more people get to dire stages without regulating their diets and exercise regimes.

    While Malays were found to have higher rates of heart and kidney problems, Chinese patients generally had higher rates of cancer.

    Some contributory factors to health problems include lifestyle factors such as lack of exercise, smoking and too much fatty or salty food.

    The government is also aware of the problem and Speaker of Parliament Halimah Yaacob has also explained that community groups and mosques have been organising health promotion activities but more still needs to be done.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com