Thomas Phua
Will CPF Board look at DPS Permanent Incapacity clause?Life insurance plan covers on PTD or TPD, total permanent disability. When insured lost the use of two limbs and on wheel chair, will be considered as PTD. Same condition, claim will not be paid as DPS's definition is Permament Incapacity, meaning one must not be able to continue to earn a living. Wheel chair bound insured, is not deemed as Permanent Incapacitated. This is really not fair to those insured on DPS. Should not DPS follow PTD term and condition for disability?
October 22 at 2:51pm
IM$avvy
Hi Thomas, thanks for the feedback. We will feedback to the relevant dept on this. Have a great weekend :)
October 24 at 7:57pm · Report
IM$avvy
Hi Thomas, thank you for your feedback.Members who are covered under DPS and subsequently become physically or mentally incapacitated from ever continuing in any employment may apply for claim benefits under DPS. A member who is physically/mentally inacapacitated should not have the ability to work in any form of employment. Members who are still able to perform some form of work but have difficulty in finding employment are not eligible to claim under the scheme. A person whose medical condition(s) has caused him to be wheelchair-bound, would be certified as being incapacitated as long as his conditions prevent him from ever continuing in any employment.
October 27 at 4:25pm · Report
Thomas Phua
This is the point, thank you for clarifying, I assisted in a case of wheel chair bound person, it is PTD or TPD as according to insurers' term and condition and claim was easily admitted. The same condition was rejected as DPS term it as not Permanent Incapacitated. A wheel chair bound person, is still deemed to be employable, selling tissue papers, or become a tele-marketeer because his hands and upper body is still functioning well. This is why I think it is not right that DPS defines PI as such and very different from PTD or TPD.
October 29 at 10:53am · Delete · Report
Thomas Phua
Statement from insurer is "we find reason to pay claims" Not to dispute claim on technicality. Poor chap already lost the use of two limbs and we still want to fault him on employability, this is heartless. It took first claim in 1995 to be rejected, and this year, 2009 it was rejected again, but we managed to find reasons enough to appeal and find reason to pay the claim after the policyholder retired from employment, still on wheel chair. He was on wheel chair for more than 10 years and finally paid, after overcoming the technicality of PI condition. I do not know how many cases have been rejected because of employability clause of PI. But is cruel.
October 29 at 11:07am · Delete · Report
IM$avvy
Hi Thomas, thank you for taking your time to provide us your feedback. We would like to invite the DPS member you mentioned to contact us directly at 6229-3312 if he has any further queries regarding his claim, we would be happy to clarify the details with him directly.
November 2 at 4:55pm · Report
Thomas Phua
Is okie, I managed to overcome the tough terms and managed to get the doctor for second opinion to prove him Permanent Incapacitated and claims paid after the initial rejection.My point is why DPS defines disability with PI instead of follow industry standard of PTD or TPD. DPS is a kind of term plan, and should follow PTD or TPD as in term plan condition. Afterall, DPS premium is not any cheaper than term plan today.
Wed at 5:45pm · Delete · Report
Thomas Phua
CPF Board should review the terms and conditions of DPS's Permanent Incapacity to follow what it is with commercial insurer's TPD or PTD definition. If the plan is to help the public, it should not be more stringent than any of the commercial insurer. This is not fair to the public who probably are not aware of this.
Wed at 5:47pm · Delete · Report
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment