Skip Navigation Links
MAS failed to help in resolving a dispute
14 May 2021 (313 views)

Mr. X had a dispute with the insurance company on the surrender value of his policy. The insurer quoted a surrender value of $57,000. Mr. X argued that it should be $71,000 based on the post sales benefit illustration (PSBI) that was issued by the insurer.

Mr. X raised the issue with the regulator, i.e. Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). They did not give him a reply. MAS asked him to resolve the dispute directly with the insurer, failing which to lodge a complaint with the dispute resolution agency (FiDREC).

Over a period of three years, Mr. X approached the consumer association (CASE), small claims court, lawyers and his member of parliament. None of these bodies could help him to resolve this dispute.

Mr. X was reluctant to use FiDREC because they asked him to sign a "non disclosure agreement". He did not trust this process.

Mr. X approached me on how to deal with the "irresponsible reply of MAS". 

I asked Mr. X to send the relevant documents to me. From my study, I conclude that Mr. X had misunderstood the figures given in the PSBI. The surrender value quoted by the insurer was correct.

This incident highlights an unsatisfactory state of affairs:

a) The figures in the PSBI were confusing and likely to be misunderstood
b) The insurer was not able to explain to Mr. X on how he had misunderstood the figures
c) MAS did not bother to study the issue and to explain to Mr. X that he had misunderstood the figures. 

If MAS had told Mr. X that the insurer is correct and that Mr. X had misunderstood the figures, the issue could have been settled earlier. 

As MAS is an impartial body, Mr. X is likely to accept its explanation. If Mr. X still refuse to accept the explanation, MAS can refer the matter to the dispute resolution agency.

The "hands off" approach that is currently adopted by MAS was not helpful. I suggest that MAS should change its approach and be more proactive and helpful.

Tan Kin Lian

 


MAS failed to help in resolving a dispute
[Back] [Print]


Mr. X had a dispute with the insurance company on the surrender value of his policy. The insurer quoted a surrender value of $57,000. Mr. X argued that it should be $71,000 based on the post sales benefit illustration (PSBI) that was issued by the insurer.

Mr. X raised the issue with the regulator, i.e. Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). They did not give him a reply. MAS asked him to resolve the dispute directly with the insurer, failing which to lodge a complaint with the dispute resolution agency (FiDREC).

Over a period of three years, Mr. X approached the consumer association (CASE), small claims court, lawyers and his member of parliament. None of these bodies could help him to resolve this dispute.

Mr. X was reluctant to use FiDREC because they asked him to sign a "non disclosure agreement". He did not trust this process.

Mr. X approached me on how to deal with the "irresponsible reply of MAS". 

I asked Mr. X to send the relevant documents to me. From my study, I conclude that Mr. X had misunderstood the figures given in the PSBI. The surrender value quoted by the insurer was correct.

This incident highlights an unsatisfactory state of affairs:

a) The figures in the PSBI were confusing and likely to be misunderstood
b) The insurer was not able to explain to Mr. X on how he had misunderstood the figures
c) MAS did not bother to study the issue and to explain to Mr. X that he had misunderstood the figures. 

If MAS had told Mr. X that the insurer is correct and that Mr. X had misunderstood the figures, the issue could have been settled earlier. 

As MAS is an impartial body, Mr. X is likely to accept its explanation. If Mr. X still refuse to accept the explanation, MAS can refer the matter to the dispute resolution agency.

The "hands off" approach that is currently adopted by MAS was not helpful. I suggest that MAS should change its approach and be more proactive and helpful.

Tan Kin Lian