Alleged “Non-disclosure” results in Voiding of Policy.

<p>“After a terrible ordeal with BrightRock they apologised profusely, understood that I was unhappy and requested acceptance of their apology because the applicable departments were reprimanded for their insolence, unprofessional service supp**** and unconstitutional behaviour towards a policy holder!”</p> <p> </p> <p>As a result of an alleged non-disclosure at application stage BrightRock declined my application for additional cover and instead issued a letter voiding my policy from inception with no refund.</p> <p> </p> <p>In terms of the wording of the exclusion clause, any claim will be excluded if it arises from any condition that existed prior to the inception date of the policy. The relevant link should then be between the claim and any pre-existing condition (as defined), not between the claim and any incident giving rise to the claim. Even though I had an incident that occurred prior to inception of policy with BrightRock, I am of firm belief that there is no substantial evidence to show any “pre-existing condition” that was “not disclosed”.</p> <p> </p> <p>I must point out that an individual cannot disclose information of which he is unaware, so the awareness of any condition is therefore not relevant when it comes to the question of material non-disclosure. My ignorance with regard to the cause of any deteriorating health condition (or a diagnosis of any condition) should be irrelevant. In a circumstance like my own, I am of firm belief that my awareness of reports issued by Medical Practitioners and / or any underlying medical conditions cannot automatically be assumed by the Insurer. Also it has to be pointed out that no diagnosis on any condition pertaining to any diseases or disorders have been made to date by any Medical Practitioner that I have been to.</p> <p> </p> <p>I understand that entering into an insurance agreement dictates non-disclosure shall be regarded as material if a person would consider that the particular information constituting the representation or which was not disclosed, as the allegation may be, should have been correctly disclosed to the insurer so that the insurer could form its own view as to the effect of such information on the assessment of the relevant risk. I abided by this without exemption as all information pertaining to my medical history was disclosed to the Financial Advisor prior to inception date of the policy. All questions were answered by me honestly and truthfully. I am of firm belief that this should be seen under the prima facie view.</p> <p> </p> <p>- Confirmation of Cover as requested was received from BrightRock on 02 Feb 2017</p> <p>- I reiterate my personal medical history with BrightRock on 02 June 2017. (After disclosing this in detail to my Financial Advisor prior to inception date of policy)</p> <p>- I am presented with a Voiding Letter from BrightRock on 18 July 2017.</p> <p>- BrightRock sent me an e-mail on 20 July 2017 confirming that after review of the additional information supp**** the decision on the terms issued and activated for 1 August 2017 will remain the same. Also stating that my Policy will remain unchanged.</p> <p>- BrightRock sent me an e-mail dated 24 July 2017 confirming that letter dated 18 July 2017, voiding the Policy, is still effective.</p> <p>This is ridiculous and unacceptable.</p> <p> </p> <p>Confirmation that Policy will be renewed and reactivated on 01 August 2017 was received subsequent to Voiding Letter, thus superseding the voiding of the Policy. Sending a letter after this again claiming that the Policy was re-activated in “error” and is still in effect void is unconstitutional to say the least!</p> <p> </p> <p>All facts relating to my medical history were made transparent to my Financial Advisor at application stage. Facts with regard to my medical history was again reiterated when changes were made to existing policy in 2017. All information was made known to a BrightRock Representative. This should also be viewed prima facie</p> <p> </p> <p>This has caused huge distress to my family and to me personally. Should something unforeseen happen now, I will not be insured in any manner. Again it needs to be reiterated that I am not guilty of the alleged “non-disclosure” which was reason to cancel existing Policy with BrightRock.</p>