During May 1986 to April 1994, AIA
sold about 110,000 life insurance policies of financial guardian
and whole life.
Starting from 2003, AIA has been using a
misleading process to supersede its original policy quotation (OPQ)
of these policies by irrelevant options, which are completely
different from OPQ. AIA calls OPQ as BI (benefit illustration). The
process will end in 2014.
AIA made a very big lie to affect policy holders that AIA does not
keep OPQ of affected policies. However,
AIA keeps OPQ of all affected policies and hides them.
The document of FAQS ON AIA CRITICAL YEAR
SUPPORT PROGRAM at http://www.aia.com.sg/pdf/faqs_cyo.pdf is a
contradictive, confusing, frustrating and misleading
document.
The very serious wrongdoings by AIA on the
dispute:
(1) AIA hides OPQ of all affected
policies and claimed that AIA does not keep them because the
industry regulatory requirement did not require AIA to file a copy
of OPQ at that time. Is the logic ridiculous?
Without OPQ, nobody knows what OPQ
specified, promised, and explained.
However, AIA does keep OPQ. AIA lied to all
affected policy holders. If AIA does not keep OPQ, how can AIA know
the critical year (CY) of each affected policy? AIA has the responsibility to provide OPQ and
fulfil what OPQ promised to the customer. AIA made a big lie!!!
(2) AIA disclaims OPQ of affected
policies. When I found that the options
are irrelevant to OPQ, AIA explained that AIA disclaims OPQ because
the industry standards were not in place at the time when it was
given. Is the logic
ridiculous? Can you believe that AIA
made such kind of excuse!!!
(3) AIA modifies customer’s policy
data (critical year) in order not to admit my OPQ. AIA used every
excuse not to admit my OPQ and disclaims my OPQ. I think that AIA did not admit any OPQ (I do not
know what excuse AIA might use).
Otherwise, it is contradictive to the disclaimer of
OPQ.
On the other hand, I do believe
that AIA admitted some.
Contradictive!!!
(4) AIA told me that my CY is 15 while it is
actually 16. AIA dared to lie with its bad
intention!!!
(5) AIA expressed that AIA would use
OPQ to assess the options for a policy.
But, the options for my policy are irrelevant to OPQ. AIA is contradictive!!!
(6) AIA provides wrong explanations
on OPQ and critical year. AIA mislead the dispute as critical year
issue. In fact, AIA does not want to fulfil what OPQ promised to
the customer. AIA wants to use irrelevant options to supersede
OPQ. The explanations AIA made today
are very complicated, contradictive, confusing and
misleading. They are not based on
OPQ.
(7) AIA has been using a very
contradictive, confusing, frustrating and misleading process to
supersede OPQ of affected policies by irrelevant
options.
Above are some of my findings.
Details can be found at http://aiainsurancedispute.blogspot.com.
AIA called the dispute between the difference of
OPQ and the options as critical year issue. But, it is actually
not. The difference is extremely huge.
The policy values offered by options for an insured amount of
S$200K could be much less than half of what OPQ promised at the
30th policy year.
Logically, the dispute should be
resolved according to OPQ. It is not
correct that AIA uses irrelevant options to supersede
OPQ.
You may tell the people you know.
They may be affected by the dispute.
AIA life insurance dispute critical year issue
business sell sold money profit loss high risk purchase buy AIA
Singapore loss