Financial Mail on Sunday
…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.
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."
…sensible…people would read this as meaning known conditions…actually this includes unknown conditions which will later become known…dated prior to this information being available…retrospective exclusion policy later becomes active.
…ethic of allowing hindsight to be acceptable…
…psychological attack persisted for 15 months…
Keep your enthusiasm, but let verification be your constant companion