The General Insurance Association, representing the insurance companies, have introduced a Motor Claim Framework in May 2008, with the aim of controlling the inflated claims. It did not work and has, in fact, resulted in more claims being submitted to the insurance companies. Here are the reasons.
1. In the past, insurers encourage private settlements if the damage was small, i.e estimated repair cost less than $1,000. This was so that motorist can continue to enjoy their NCD. Under MCF, all accidents have to be reported to the insurers and claims will as a matter of course, be made. We all know that when insurers are involved, the workshops jack up the repair cost. From a repair of a few hundred dollars, the price is now a few thousand dollars.
2. The assumption is that the appointed workshops help the insurers to control the repair cost. This is not true because they in fact are out to make a good profit from the insurers. They put up high estimates. And some of them bribe motor surveyors to overlook many items which may be overpriced or which repairs/replacements may not be necessary. The trick is to overblow their repair estimates for the appointed surveyor to go through the motion of cutting a few items. This give the appearance that the surveyor has done his job. The going rate, I understand is for workshops to pay $100 per case to surveyors to gloss through the repair estimates. That is why the tender system is still the best to get around this.
3. Workshop owners work with lawyers and educate motorists on their legal rights with respect to personal injury claims. In the past, small injuries or soft tissue injuries may be overlooked. Now workshops refer them to lawyers to claim. I know of a person who was involved in an accident two years ago when a taxi collided into the rear of his car. He and his wife suffered slight pain in the neck. The workshop owner told them to claim for the injury and referred them to a lawyer to assist. That is why personal injury claims (especially for soft tissue injuries) have increased in recent years. I think most of these claims are genuine. In the past, they did not surface because people did not think of seeing a doctor and claiming if the injury was not serious.
Freddy Neo
(Mr. Freddy Neo was previously the general manager for general insurance in NTUC Income. )
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
NTUC is less pro-society now
Hi Kin Lian,
Are you aware of how NTUC Insurance has evolved since you left?
I entered the industry (as an independent advisor) the same year you left NTUC in 2007. I'm a newbie here. But it does not prevent me from observing (with a sigh), that NTUC, the company you led for a long time, has changed since you left - from an organisation that prides itself for being pro-society to a somewhat changed "organism".
NTUC used to be tolerant towards people whose health are not in "tip-top" conditions. I attribute it to its role of being a pro-society co-operative, putting more emphasis in social goodness rather than profit/loss (that's what the guys there always say). It's a humane organisation.
Of course, ultimately bottomline counts. But now, for unknown reasons, the same organisation is suddenly turning its back on the people it's supposed to serve. So much so that it has tightened its procedures so drastically, resulting in people being rendered uninsurable for slight ailments, ie, not in tip-top conditions. It wants to have a sure-win situation?
That's why I say its a systemic problem. Because if this toughness continues, many Singaporeans, especially the older folks, will be without insurance/ medical coverages. Imagine how huge an issue it can be, in an era of aging population, increasing medical expenses etc. I can't comment whether it's due to a change in management philosophy. But for any person who cares (& I think you might), I would say that this is a Mini-bond in the making. Some time, some how, things will blow up. And it can be quite disasterous.
REPLY
I suggest that you write to the secretary general of NTUC, Mr. Lim Swee Say. I hope that he will respond to your feedback.
Are you aware of how NTUC Insurance has evolved since you left?
I entered the industry (as an independent advisor) the same year you left NTUC in 2007. I'm a newbie here. But it does not prevent me from observing (with a sigh), that NTUC, the company you led for a long time, has changed since you left - from an organisation that prides itself for being pro-society to a somewhat changed "organism".
NTUC used to be tolerant towards people whose health are not in "tip-top" conditions. I attribute it to its role of being a pro-society co-operative, putting more emphasis in social goodness rather than profit/loss (that's what the guys there always say). It's a humane organisation.
Of course, ultimately bottomline counts. But now, for unknown reasons, the same organisation is suddenly turning its back on the people it's supposed to serve. So much so that it has tightened its procedures so drastically, resulting in people being rendered uninsurable for slight ailments, ie, not in tip-top conditions. It wants to have a sure-win situation?
That's why I say its a systemic problem. Because if this toughness continues, many Singaporeans, especially the older folks, will be without insurance/ medical coverages. Imagine how huge an issue it can be, in an era of aging population, increasing medical expenses etc. I can't comment whether it's due to a change in management philosophy. But for any person who cares (& I think you might), I would say that this is a Mini-bond in the making. Some time, some how, things will blow up. And it can be quite disasterous.
REPLY
I suggest that you write to the secretary general of NTUC, Mr. Lim Swee Say. I hope that he will respond to your feedback.
Survey: How will you vote in the General Election (1)?
The hot topic now is the next general election, which may be held in 2009. How will you vote? Give your views in this survey.
Please pass the word around to your friends and invite them to give their views in this survey. I like to have many people to participate, so that the results can be more representative of the population.
UPDATE
Here are the survey results based on 206 replies. The results are quite close to the results based on 149 replies. This shows that the results are not affected by the size of the sample, provided that the initial sample is quite large (say 50 replies)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)