Image
Icon

Directory

IconAssociations and Institutes
IconBBBEE Consulting and Verification Agencies
IconConsumer Protection
IconCorporate Governance
IconCredit Bureaus
IconFinancial Planners
IconLife Insurance Companies
IconLife Insurance Products
IconOmbud
IconOnline Quotes
IconPublic Loss Adjustors
IconPublications
IconRe-insurance Companies
IconRegulatory Authorities
IconSocial Grants (Government)
IconWellness Programs
Advertise Here
  Subscribe To »

Insurance firm rebuked for shoddy service

Published

2017

Mon

27

Mar

 

 

 

 

Judge Ron McLaren, Ombudsman for Long-term Insurance

 

 

 

 

 

Cape Town: Insurance company Channel Life has been rapped on the knuckles by the Ombudsman for Long-term Insurance Judge Ron McLaren for its “lackadaisical” approach to the administration of a claim.

The Ombudsman said his office had seldom seen “such poor level of service” and ordered that compensation of R7500 be paid to the complainant for suffering material inconvenience and distress.

The insured passed away on 4 November 2013 and a claim was submitted on 13 December 2013.

Between 17 December 2013 and 24 November 2015, Channel Life requested the attorneys handling the deceased’s estate on no fewer than five occasions to submit the same set of documents - despite these having been provided to the insurer on 24 February 2014.

Channel Life paid R2 384.21 in respect of the claim on 12 May 2016. It paid the balance of the claim amounting to R21 789.14 on 3 June 2016. The insurance company advised that no interest would be paid on the claim amounts as the assessment of the claim had been delayed by the outstanding claim requirements being submitted late by the executor of the estate.

A complaint was lodged by the widow of the deceased. Following intervention by the Office of the Ombudsman, Channel Life agreed to pay interest calculated from 18 June 2014.

Channel Life was requested by the Office of the Ombudsman to consider paying a compensatory award. Channel Life offered R1 500 which was declined by the complainant.

The matter was discussed at an adjudicator's meeting and the Office of the Ombudsman made a provisional determination on the basis that Channel Life was in possession of the required claim documentation as early as 17 June 2014 and that the continued requests for documentation after that date delayed the payment of the claim and caused the complainant material inconvenience and distress.

The meeting also held that following the payment of the initial amount of R2 384.21, the complainant was again inconvenienced when it was established that a further claim payment was due, but had not been paid.

The meeting agreed that a compensatory payment of R7500 for the material inconvenience and distress caused, be awarded.

Channel Life disputed the provisional determination and submitted that on 17 June 2014, the insurance company was under the impression that there were still outstanding documents. It said the reason for the continued requests was the failure by the executor of the estate to respond to their requests.

Channel Life accepted that they delayed the full payment but submitted that "this was due to values confirmation".

It added that the quantum of R7 500 as compensatory award was out of line with precedents and was not fairly balanced. Channel Life said whilst it had not acted expeditiously in the matter, at the same time, it had not been at fault.

Channel Life offered compensation of R2 500 which was rejected by the complainant.

The matter was again discussed at an adjudicator’s meeting on 20 January 2017 which upheld the provisional determination for the following reasons:

  • the information on file confirmed that Channel Life was in receipt of all the claim requirements on 18 June 2014;
  • Channel Life's repeated requests, over a long period of time, for documentation already in its possession, delayed the claim unnecessarily;
  • the unnecessary delay exacerbated the already stressful situation that the complainant found herself in, following the death of her spouse;
  • Channel Life's approach to the administration of the claim was lackadaisical;
  • the complainant had suffered material inconvenience and distress as a result of Channel Life's maladministration of the claim;
  • the Office of the Ombudsman had seldom seen such a poor level of service;
  • an award of compensation is not a penalty or form of punishment; and
  • no determination by the Ombudsman for Long-term Insurance sets a precedent.

Channel Life was instructed by the Ombudsman to pay compensation of R7 500. The insurer complied. 

 
Source: Meropa Communications
 
« Back to previous page Print this page » |
 

Breaking News »

New Credit Life Insurance Regulations Bring Good News for Consumers

A new set of credit life insurance regulations that will protect consumers from abusive practices by credit providers came into effect this week. The regulations have been hailed as a positive step to prevent consumers ...
Read More »

  

A health cash plan can cover loss of income

            Lee Bromfield, CEO of FNB Life                     People ...
Read More »

  

FSB draws attention to correction of Fin 24 article on Regulatory Examination and Wealth Management Qualification Fraud

On 14 June 2017 the Financial Services Board (FSB) issued a press release regarding qualification and examination fraud that was discovered by the Financial Planning Institute of Southern Africa (FPI) which required ...
Read More »

  

Liberty’s results reflect lower earnings and improved cashflow for the first half of 2017

Normalised headline earnings for the six months to 30 June 2017 are lower than the prior period but show an improvement compared to the second half of 2016. Growth in sales and net customer cash inflows, are underpinned ...
Read More »

 

More News »

Image

Healthcare »

Image

Investment »

Image

Retirement »

Image

Short-term »

Advertise Here
Image
Advertise Here

From The Glossary »

Icon

Stakeholder:

A current member, including an active member, a pensioner and a deferred pensioner, a former member and an employer participating in the fund.
More Definitions »

 
 
By using this website you agree to the Terms of Use.
Copyright © Stoker Risk & ICT (Pty) Ltd 2004 - 2017.
All Rights Reserved.
Icon

Advertise

  Icon

eZine

  Icon

Contact IG

Icon

Media Pack

  Icon

RSS Feeds