Time to Cancel your NTUC Income Policy.


Status
Not open for further replies.

ComboXed

New Member
Jul 7, 2007
7
0
0
With immediate effect, I will cancel all my NTUC Income life and car policy :thumbsd:

15 years after stroke, he wins full payout
Judge ticks off insurer for its treatment of client
By Crystal Chan

August 16, 2007


WHEN Mr Chiang Soong Chee suffered a stroke, he went from a man capable of lifting drums of paint to someone resigned to signing cheques in the family-run paint store.


He was no longer able to handle his old tasks.

Never mind, he thought, he could always rely on his insurance payout.

But after making the first five instalment payments, NTUC Income held back on the remaining amount.

The insurance company, which is the biggest here with more than 1.8 million policy holders, argued that Mr Chiang was not totally and permanently disabled.

And he was able to work, though not at the same job he held previously.

Mr Chiang, disagreeing with the insurer, sued for the remaining $90,000.

And won.

SEVERELY PARALYSED

Mr Chiang became severely paralysed in his left limbs after a stroke in 1992.

He had bought a life insurance policy in 1988, which said that Income (then NTUC Co-operative Insurance Commonwealth Enterprise) was to pay $150,000 in 10 annual instalments if he became totally and permanently disabled.

But after the stroke, Mr Chiang was told by his insurance agent later that year that his disability did not meet Income's criteria.

The agent was not named in the court papers.

In March 2001, during a chat with friends, Mr Chiang was urged to go ahead and make the claim.

He decided to act on their advice and registered his claim.

By this time, after nine years of being treated by neurologist Dr Tong Hoo Ing, he was able to walk, albeit with a limp.

In August that year, Mr Chiang was examined by Dr Tong and another doctor. Both doctors certified him as totally and permanently disabled.

Initially, all went well with his claim.

The insurer accepted the doctors' findings and in Sep 2001 told Mr Chiang that it would pay him four annual instalments of $15,000 each.

The first payment was made in late 2001. A final instalment of $90,000 would be paid in 2005.

Mr Chiang was paid the first $60,000, but things then went awry.

Before Income made the final payment in Jan 2005, it asked Dr Tong to clarify Mr Chiang's current condition, which it was entitled to do under the policy.

This time, Dr Tong certified that Mr Chiang was not totally and permanently disabled, but maintained that he was unemployable.

This was because while Mr Chiang was mobile, he still carried a limp and had poor short-term memory.

Income then decided not to pay Mr Chiang the remaining $90,000, saying he was no longer totally and permanently disabled.

So Mr Chiang filed a suit.

He was awarded judgment last month in the Subordinate Courts by District Judge Lim Wee Ming, who rapped the insurer for its treatment of Mr Chiang.

The judge said the insurer could not provide a clause to attract potential customers, only to make it difficult for them to claim the money.

Said District Judge Lim: 'Income cannot on one hand have a clause that appears more acceptable to potential customers but when they seek to enforce it, Income be allowed to take advantage of the ambiguity against the customer.'

In his affidavit, Mr Chiang said that before the stroke, he handled, stacked, moved and delivered drums and tins of paint.

His lawyer argued that because of the stroke, he was no longer able to carry out such work.

As a result, his work with his family business is limited to signing cheques and bank documents.

Mr Chiang's present role in the family business was minor compared to what he was doing before, and he remained employed only out of his siblings' sympathy.

His doctors also testified that Mr Chiang was unable to do manual work.

The main issue for the court was the interpretation of the policy, which stated that the disability must be total and permanent such that the insured person is unable to earn a living.

In its defence, Income said it had observed a strict interpretation of the policy, which meant that Mr Chiang, even if only signing cheques and bank documents, was gainfully employed.

Under a broader interpretation, the court would consider work as that which the insured was doing when he bought the policy.

But Income claimed that Mr Chiang would have to show that he could not do any work whatsoever, regardless of his occupation when he bought the policy.

The judge disagreed, saying that the phrase 'regardless of the usual occupation of the Life Assured' was not mentioned in the policy.

In his judgment, Mr Lim wrote: 'Obviously, such a provision would have made the policy less palatable to potential customers.'

The judge also noted that Income's strict interpretation of the policy would then apply only to extreme cases, such as brain damage or vegetable-like existence.

And that was not fair.

He was satisfied that Mr Chiang qualified for the payout as he could not continue the work he did before the stroke.

Mr Chiang declined comment when contacted at his home, but a staff member at his family's shop, Sai Sia Paint, said he still works there.

Income's lawyer, Mr Sundararaj Palaniappan of Straits Law Practice LLC, told The New Paper that his client plans to appeal.


http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,138844,00.html
 

All insurance companies are out to make money, that's the bottomline, the only reason why they give you so high payout for the amount you pay (depending on policy) is because of CHANCE, and they have obviously done their research to ensure that they will not lose out.

Don't see how this makes any insurance company any different from another one. Or why you should end up cancelling your policy. I personally think NTUC insurance plans are pretty decent compared to a lot offered by the market out there. I have had bad experiences dealing with certain insurance companies, having just turned 21. Poor service, and non-existant help from agent, what bullshit.
 

Insurance company tries to screw people over. Big surprise...NOT!
 

but it is quite well known that a couple of companies make it harder to claim against than others..
 

isn't this been the practised?
 

Just one news and going to cancel all policy?

Hahaha.....I am really laughing my heart out! :bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:
 

Their travel insurance is ok. I once had my phone and money picked-pocketed from me in Europe. It was easy to claim with them. Maybe its becos its not a large sum. No experience trying to claim very large sums with them.
 

i shop at fairprice after comparing product prices but not at income.
 

And here is the top list of the worst scammers in the world.....(joke.....):bsmilie:

1) Insurance Agents & Co. (Eh.....you still working lei...........not disable......cannot claim)

2) Doctors (You need a surgery..................if not it will cost your life.......so I need to charge you $60,000 for it)

3) Lawyers (Talk C**K Sing Song is their best ability)

4) Football Players (Diving method)

5) Actors and Actress ( Wah lau this one is a classic one)

6) Politicians (This one sensitive issue but I think you all know lar what I am talking about)

7) Recording artiste.......(hahaha....steal my songs har Pay Pay Pay back my copyrights)

8)

Please feel free to contribute

I never trust insurance but sometimes in life, we do not have a choice.

I have an uncle who bought insurance and had almost a similar problems but his life assurance company was much better than NTUC Income. They paid him in 10 installments (the claim was $250,000) as he was considered as permanently disable and unable to work. But a miracle happen when he went for therapy and recovered partially. The insurance company knew about his part recover but still continue to pay him as he was unable to earn any form of income. He is still trying his best to recover and part of his money that he claim was paid to his therapy. Now that is what I call a good claim.

There is bad claims as well. I have heard many many problems from my friends who try to claim. This will never end. We just need to read the fine line which the contract which we sign on.
 

Why read the fine prints when your agent is the one that is suppose to interpret everything for you? They are after all earning a commission from you.

Would your Bos read the fine prints of documents, after having employed you to do the job for him?

If the agent do not explain/ interpret, DON'T sign. :bsmilie: And if you feel explanation insufficient, DON'T sign.
 

It is time the insurance company wakes up and do not argue using fine print that the customer does not know. If we understand those jargons, nobody would buy insurance.

At the point in time a person is certified eligible for a claim, how many will recover just like Mr Chiang?

You, an insurance company assesses a person base on his current employment and he paid according to the hazard of the employment.

If he is in a high risk occupation e.g. a blue collar in a shipyard, he aged and now do clerical job still in the shipyard, is he allowed to pay a lower premium now?

Any person in the insurance line which to comment?
 

Whilst I sympathise with thisn poor gentleman, and NTUC is rightly chided, we need to bear in mind that the insurance companies have a duty to make sure that honest contributors are not defrauded by bogus or inflated claims, such as the situation that blights the motor insurance industry. So, they felt they had a case and they made a challenge, and they lost. They got their knuckles rapped (rightfully), so move on.
 

The case is not over, they still want to appeal. Is the bad publicity worth $90,000?
 

....
I never trust insurance but sometimes in life, we do not have a choice.

I have an uncle who bought insurance and had almost a similar problems but his life assurance company was much better than NTUC Income. They paid him in 10 installments (the claim was $250,000) as he was considered as permanently disable and unable to work. But a miracle happen when he went for therapy and recovered partially. The insurance company knew about his part recover but still continue to pay him as he was unable to earn any form of income. He is still trying his best to recover and part of his money that he claim was paid to his therapy. Now that is what I call a good claim.

There is bad claims as well. I have heard many many problems from my friends who try to claim. This will never end. We just need to read the fine line which the contract which we sign on.
So which Insurance company do you guys recommend?
 

thank God ! i got no NTUC income insurance.

currently got AIA, Aviva and GEL.

:think:
 

thank God ! i got no NTUC income insurance.

currently got AIA, Aviva and GEL.

:think:

they also do business the same way...they have the same practise as what u see here...what makes them any diff from NTUC?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.