Homepage
PR Newswire
28-12-2010, 10:59 AM
I met up with my advisor recently, and decided to take up a separate H&S plan to augment my existing coverage, which is the basic Medishield. I also took up the best possible shield plan to cover private hospitalisation, along with riders to offset the premium payable.
On the DI insurance, I actually felt it was a bit onerous for the policy holder in the following areas, though some are contentious and may be debatable:
1) Premiums are not guaranteed and may be adjusted based on future experience or due to changes in occupation or country of residence. Whilst it may be reasonable to expect premiums may increase if one were to take on a more hazardous job or categorized in a different category of employment, it seems that the above phrase is meant as a catch-all via the use of 'future experience' and 'changes in occupation'. It essentially means even if one were to change from one desk-bound job to another desk-bound job, premiums are still not guaranteed as the 'future experience' may change. Similarly, a change of country of residence also requires the policy holder to actively remember to inform the insurer to the move, and such a notice is not an FYI action, but to seek concurrence on the policy remaining unchanged.
2) "Total Disability" means a state of incapacity, resulting from illness or accident, which is such that the Life Assured is
(a) totally unable to perform the material duties of
i. his own occupation or profession for the first twenty four (24) months of any period of Total Disability; and
ii. any occupation or profession to which he is suited by reason of his training, education or experience after the first twenty four (24) months of any period of Total Disability; My thoughts as follow: Firstly, clause(ii) weakens the proposition as the insurer can argue the claimant can easily find employment in any other 'related' employment even if the claimant may find it physically strenuous to do so. The onus is placed on the claimant to prove why it is practically infeasible to do so? Secondly, for people who expect to work in desk-bound jobs in the near future, is the effective value add of the policy reduced? Since it effectively insures only against primarily loss of both hands, and perhaps loss of mental capability via depression, psychological disorders, etc. (Assuming one can still turn up for work with other losses since it does not prevent the person from doing what he/she used to do) The premium for this category is much less than other categories however. Thirdly, my understanding from my advisor was that the certifying doctor will most likely be required to substantiate the certification with "a lot of paperwork" in reality, hence one would be prudent to utilise the deferment period (shortest is 3 months) to sort out the paperwork. However, there is no guarantee that the process will be completed within this period. My feel that is that for short periods of loss of income for instance, the benefit becomes marginalised severely especially if the entire certification process drags on.
On the DI insurance, I actually felt it was a bit onerous for the policy holder in the following areas, though some are contentious and may be debatable:
1) Premiums are not guaranteed and may be adjusted based on future experience or due to changes in occupation or country of residence. Whilst it may be reasonable to expect premiums may increase if one were to take on a more hazardous job or categorized in a different category of employment, it seems that the above phrase is meant as a catch-all via the use of 'future experience' and 'changes in occupation'. It essentially means even if one were to change from one desk-bound job to another desk-bound job, premiums are still not guaranteed as the 'future experience' may change. Similarly, a change of country of residence also requires the policy holder to actively remember to inform the insurer to the move, and such a notice is not an FYI action, but to seek concurrence on the policy remaining unchanged.
2) "Total Disability" means a state of incapacity, resulting from illness or accident, which is such that the Life Assured is
(a) totally unable to perform the material duties of
i. his own occupation or profession for the first twenty four (24) months of any period of Total Disability; and
ii. any occupation or profession to which he is suited by reason of his training, education or experience after the first twenty four (24) months of any period of Total Disability; My thoughts as follow: Firstly, clause(ii) weakens the proposition as the insurer can argue the claimant can easily find employment in any other 'related' employment even if the claimant may find it physically strenuous to do so. The onus is placed on the claimant to prove why it is practically infeasible to do so? Secondly, for people who expect to work in desk-bound jobs in the near future, is the effective value add of the policy reduced? Since it effectively insures only against primarily loss of both hands, and perhaps loss of mental capability via depression, psychological disorders, etc. (Assuming one can still turn up for work with other losses since it does not prevent the person from doing what he/she used to do) The premium for this category is much less than other categories however. Thirdly, my understanding from my advisor was that the certifying doctor will most likely be required to substantiate the certification with "a lot of paperwork" in reality, hence one would be prudent to utilise the deferment period (shortest is 3 months) to sort out the paperwork. However, there is no guarantee that the process will be completed within this period. My feel that is that for short periods of loss of income for instance, the benefit becomes marginalised severely especially if the entire certification process drags on.