Her Insurance Plan Was...

Since my last post about Ms Cheam Teo Seng, regarding her insurance claim from AIA for an ankle surgery at Gleneagles, I correctly anticipated the reasons for the "discrepancies" of her claims as reflected in the reply by AIA on the 24 Oct to the ST Forum.

Ms Cheam Teo Seng is carrying on to pursue her belief that she is right by responding on the 29 Oct in the ST Forum with her discontent. Will be expecting AIA to reply soon.

Although I empathize her situation and fully understand her reasons for being upset, I can't help but feel a little that she deserves her plight.

Why?

From a sincere financial adviser perspective, I may be wrong, but she could be part of the majority where they despise financial planners and do not seek the advise from a proper consultant. Disrespectfully rejecting sincere efforts to assist them.

Firstly, the points she made reflects the lack of knowledge of the plan she has and what it covers. If she had sought guidance from a competent planner explaining her coverage, she would be purchasing a plan where she fully understood what she has got. (That's for not committing the time for quality advice from a true professional. Trusting only to take advice from a relative or a friend.)

Secondly, she chose the most basic plan when she seems to be the more affluent type, considering her choice of hospital. She probably wanted to save a few dollars but now ended with inappropriate coverage and is unhappy about it. (That's for being penny wise pound foolish, thinking that insurance is unnecessary and opted for the cheapest.)

Avoid unnecessary unpleasantness like this by keeping an open mind and do some research on your own before you actively look for a professional for further advice and clarifications.

Do not wait till something unfortunate to occur before taking action, you only have yourself to blame. Whining on the public newspaper after it has happened only shows your ignorance.

(Note: I am not an AIA agent and I am not taking sides with AIA. I am viewing the situation objectively that she got what she deserves, which she is what she is covered. I would definitely be on the consumer's side to fight all the way if she could not claim even though she is covered.)