I’ve put a claim in for Critical Illness but they are being difficult!
I took the policy out in 2016, In January 2017 I developed Optic Neuritis, It states on my medical records, “Suspected Optic Neuritis”, We now know this was my first relapse, Insurance company are saying I should have told them about this but no where does it say I needed to, have any of you had an experience like this?
EDIT: I should say I was diagnosed this year 2019!
if i were you i’d get legal advice because they will try to squirm their way out of it.
i got my diagnosis about 8 years after taking out critical illness cover and they paid up fairly promptly.
it doesn’t seem fair but they will claim that the diagnosis is too close to the claim.
that’s why you need legal advice.
Hi AD, You will have to fight your corner; don’t give up; see below; different circumstances but just to show you must not take no for an answer. MS patient wins cash battle with insurer A woman with multiple sclerosis has won a legal battle with an insurance firm that refused to pay out under critical illness policies after she was diagnosed with the illness. The exact worth of Valerie Cuthbertson’s Court of Session victory over Friends Provident has still to be finalised, but she should receive about a £50,000 lump sum and a weekly payment of £139. The court heard that the firm had used questionable methods in its search for evidence to invalidate the policies and had latched on to entries in Ms Cuthbertson’s medical records. She had not disclosed a handful of appointments with her doctor in the application forms for the insurance, but the judge ruled that she had no reason to believe those were of any importance. Ms Cuthbertson said: “It has been a long time, five and a half years, but I felt I had to take it all the way because they were wrong. I felt I had a really good case, and I think for anybody else going through this sort of thing, they will take heart from this.” Ms Cuthbertson, 39, a theatre manager from Glasgow, took out the cover in 1994. Nearly two years later, she was diagnosed with MS but did not appreciate that the policies covered her condition and made no claim. Then, in 1999, a representative of Friends Provident called on her to review her financial affairs. He arranged for a claim form to be sent to her and Ms Cuthbertson submitted it. Friends Provident obtained a report from her consultant neurologist, who confirmed an unequivocal diagnosis of MS. A request was then made to her GP for sight of her medical records. In his judgment yesterday, Lord Eassie said: "The letter referred to the notes being required to help [the firm’s] chief medical officer in the assessment of the claim and stated that they would be given ‘careful and sympathetic consideration’. “However … [the firm] had already obtained all the information they required to satisfy themselves that [Ms Cuthbertson] had multiple sclerosis, and the only purpose of recovering the GP records was to see whether … there was any entry which might give grounds for avoiding or invalidating the policy under which the claim was being made.” Friends Provident did reject the claim on the ground that Ms Cuthbertson had failed to disclose her full medical history. In its defences, Friends Provident cited five consultations with the GP which, it claimed, ought to have been disclosed. Those took place between 1990 and 1994 and involved complaints about eye pain, an ear problem and tingling in a leg. Ms Cuthbertson’s neurologist said that, with the benefit of hindsight, and knowing her now to have MS, it might be possible “to discern in some of the entries a possible indication that she was developing the unfortunate disorder”. However, he would not have expected a GP to have been alerted to the possible significance of the incidents. Lord Eassie said: “I am satisfied that, at the time of answering the matters raised in the application forms, she did not think that the consultations with her GP were of any materiality.” Source: The Scotsman ©2006 Scotsman.com Although it is not precedence in the UK because of EU laws a judge will take this into consideration. This ‘deferral period’ is probably referring to your claim time. I seem to remember a person who’s Insurance Company would not pay him as there is a difference in getting your CI through your work or privately. Through your work have I believe a 2 year period before you can claim; I may be wrong on this. Also see Financial Mail wins £280k payout for MS sufferer who spent 3 years battling L&G | This is Money This means it’s a precedent in England. If you need a Solicitor see Multiple Sclerosis Legal Advice Line | Disability Law Service the society pay a retainer, it’s free. George
Thank you for the info! It seems they can’t do this, but will certainley do what I can!
Hopefully you will be ok because the ON occurred after the policy was taken out. How could you tell them about something that hadn’t happened. Not making a comparison here but my late uncle developed a severe medical symptom. Before going to the medics he took out a very sizeable Health Insurance Policy Shortly afterwards he went to the doctors - nasty condition diagnosed (not m.s.) and he died about a year late. Insurance Company not happy but there was nothing in his medical records when the policy was taken out to suggest he had a medical problem.
Friends Provident mmmm, I had 2 CI claims in, one with Hailfax which was paid pretty quickly and one with FP. Well FP started to argue over the exact wording of the letter they were sent by my Neurologist ( English was not his first language) but they eventually paid out 4 months later