1st for Women hid an important policy in exclusion in a URL and omitted it from the policy document

My claim of no more than R5k has been rejected based on an exclusion which was hidden in a URL. The list of the exclusions is on the policy document but the one sentence that matters the most has been deliberately hidden on a page that contains the same exclusions as those on the policy document. This is clear misrepresentation and an intent to deceive by hiding important detail that can influence whether to take up the policy or not. I logged a dispute and was told I should expect feedback in 15 working days (the worst Turnaround in the history of insurance). 15 working days amounts to 26 days in total for me. How in good conscience do you keep a client waiting for 26 days only to tell them the same thing? Because I can’t wait 26 days for a reply I asked for my policy to be cancelled and my premiums to be refunded. I was told my premiums won’t be refunded. They refuse to honour my claim and are also refusing to refund me my premiums. This definitely feels like day light *******. As we speak my debit order went off a few days ago. I continue to pay but I’m told to also pay for my own repairs. I regret why I did not take up the Innovation Group policy. They have a better product, followed by McCarthy. The 1st for Women product does not have limits which is what they used as a draw card only to realise it’s a ****. It’s the most expensive extended warranty product in the market but I chose it because of no limits. The exclusion is only one bullet point and yet they chose to put it on a link. Really ********* marketing. Feels like I went to a loan shark and finding out the hard way. I’m definitely taking this up with the National Consumer Commission for ********* marketing as well as the insurance ombudsman