Ombudsman's GP report plea rejected
Share
An FOS ombudsman told the Protection Review conference that insurers should gather more medical evidence from doctors to improve the application process.
In a panel session on imp-roving process and selection, Ombudsman Melissa Collett said that many customer complaints centred on the belief that insurers would contact their doctor for further information.
She said: “It seems to me that consumers would love to have this burden taken away from them and for insurers to ask the person who knows, who is the doctor.
“That would get rid of this whole debate about process and also get rid of the problems with these long-winded application forms.”
But Partner Re head of und-erwriting and claims for UK and Ireland Stuart Johnson said: “I do not buy that. It would be unrealistic to ask for a doctor’s report on every case because that would be cost-prohibitive.”
Lifesearch head of life office relations Emma Prescott said that requesting doctor’s reports can result in delays which leads some customers to abandon the cover.
She said: “Ultimately, GPs’ responsibilities are to look after sick people, not complete reports.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (2)
Jerry Brown | 22 Jul 2010 10:31 am
Unfortunately we are paying the price of over-engaging with the FOS. Some re calibration of claims standards was required, particularly for CI, but it has gone too far and is being led by someone who is an admitted consumerist.
It about time the industry stepped back from this engagement and stopped allowing her to voice her more extreme views, which are often interpreted as dictats and without adequate challenge.
A degree tension between the industry and its "arbitrator" is a healthy thing.
And lets not forget, it is the honest punter who pays for liars whose claims get paid...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30 Jul 2010 12:47 pm
I work for an underwriter and think that obtaining reports would be easier for insurers who could set the infrastructure in place, particularly if consumers agree to them obtaining their medical information. The kind of information required by insurers is often extensive and important parts of which only requested once a claim is made. If this was obtained pre-inception the insured could have the peace of mind knowing that if a claim is made where an insured event occurred it would be paid. It is certainly worth debate and not the cynical case of "liars" getting their claims paid. Jerry appears to have a bitter, personal vendetta against consumers.
This proposal would also reduce claims being rejected for non-disclosure and in turn stop more unnecessary complaints reaching the ombudsman.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment