19.10.99
…not
the exclusions in themselves but the flawed reasoning behind their execution.
To allow retrospection.
On
what specific grounds was my claim refused? What exactly are the associated
symptoms alleged to have manifested by October 1995?
…specifically
date the alleged evidence…benign - specifically
- brain tumour…MRI was acquired in November 1996…diagnosis
followed as a result of the scan...minimum necessary evidence for a
neurologist and neurosurgeon to be reasonably sure…
not until October 1996 - at the very earliest.
…Chief
Medical Officer was satisfied that such a condition was obvious by October 1995
- in the absence of a scan.
How?
What
evidence without a scan allowed this to be so certain?
…retrospectively
working from the scan result with the certain knowledge…
…date
the condition before January 1996...absolutely essential to attempt to justify
a claim refusal.
…condition
that could not reasonably be diagnosed earlier…
…referral
in October 1996 to a neurologist is not
advice for a condition that had not been diagnosed.
…initial statement in
the medical questionnaire to my doctor demonstrates deceit:
Your patient is
claiming is (sic) respect of Benign Brain Tumour and, if this is confirmed the
sum assured is payable.
…payable in theory, but
actually will never be paid because
it is confirmed. It is clearly a misleading statement.
"...we
would not be able to accept a claim in respect of...if, prior to any problems
associated with any of them had been experienced."
…ethic
of allowing hindsight to be acceptable…
…psychological
attack persisted for 15 months…
Keep your
enthusiasm, but let verification be your constant companion
Louis Pasteur