Not allowed to cancel medical aid

Dear Sirs/Madam On 24th October 2018 @ 9am I received a call from Medihelp (Mariesan Pretorius – Non disclosure department). Ms Pretorius informed me that my application for chronic medication was being investigated due lapse of the (21days requirement if the applicant is HIV pos. I would like to state that “This requirement was NEVER highlighted, mentioned verbally or provided to me writing by my broker during our meetings in regard to my requiring a medical aid and was never provided to me in written correspondence between both parties. Ms. Pretorius further informed me that my application and all documentation pertaining to this application to join Medihelp did not state anywhere in the application that I am indeed HIV pos. And that was viewed as “a prohibiting of information/non-disclosure. I informed Ms Pretoris that as far as I was aware my condition had been disclosed from the offset/included being discussed during my initial meeting with Mr Eric Scott from Du Preez Financial Services (broker), whom I subsequently signed this contract with for the said medial aid benefits. NOTE: I have in my position emails of my correspondence prior to meeting with Mr Eric Scott where he clearly acknowledges in writing that he is aware of my disclosure to him regarding my status (can be forwarded on request). NOTE: I feel it’s important to note that when I contacted Medihelp directly via the internet and filled in the necessary information I was immediately contacted by Mr Eric Scott who stated he was an accredited financial medical advisor acting on behalf of Du Preez Financial Services, as a broker representing Medihelp and other medical aids, and further stated that he had been asked to contact me directly by Medihelp after I completed the on-line enquire form. On my receiving this information from Ms Pretoris, I immediately contacted Mr Eric Scott telephonically, outlining to him the call I had received from Ms Pretoris stating that my application for chronic medication was being investigated as I had lapsed the 21day period given to apply, and that “this requirement had not been verbally stated to me at any time during our dealings, or is this requirement viewable anywhere in correspondence received or in the application form. When I pointed this out to Mr Eric Scott during this telephone call, Mr Scott did acknowledge verbally to me that he had not provided me with this essential information, but he did acknowledge that he had informed me to call the “chronic medication department of Medhelp – I did as requested, filled in the forms, provided the required “blood tests/counts” and returned these to Medhelp. Mr Scott assured me numinous times during our telephonic conversations prior to me confirming with him that I would be taking the Medihelp plan, that “this is all I have to do to receive my ARV monthly medication. My contact commenced on 1st June 2018 and all debit orders were consequently deducted from my bank account. Due to my state of mind on receiving this call from Ms Pretorius and subsequently my call with Mr Eric Sott whereby he notified me that he did not know the “number of days required for chronic medication had to be requested/or that Medhelp required this to be provided within a 21days after application is activated/the member has joined, I broke down in tears. Mr Scott subsequently sent me an email on concluding this telephonic conversation with me (10.35am 24/10/18) further stating “Please see the application form you filed out for Medihelp. Question 9 on page 8 speaks about the HIV declaration, I am sure I told you to phone this number when we met”. NOTE: I STATE EMPHATICALLY that at NO TIME whatsoever, verbally or when going over the documentation of this policy at my business premises did Mr. Scott draw my attention in anyway whatsoever to this paragraph. The mentioning of this “inclusion specifically by Mr. Scott (in the above email this morning) is the FIRST time I viewed this paragraph or was instructed to view it, including this being the first time Mr. Scott had mentioned this paragraph to me. I find it very concerning and particular that “THIS SPECIFIC PARAGRAPH” was, which is now clear to me that it was intentionally “omitted/not brought to my attention by Mr. Eric Scott. I strongly feel that my “position regarding my status was used against me in this regard intentionally by Mr. Scott, and that he was well aware that I had left Discovery MMED when starting my new employment, and that I was urgently needing to gain a new medical aid/plan”, without having a long absence from my old plan to a new one”. On my employer seeing me in tears, she immediately called me into her office. I gave her an overview of what had transpired from my phone call from both Ms. Pretorius and Mr. Scott of Du Preez financial services. She immediately requested that I bring her my contract and all relevant documentation in this regard. My employer had been present during first meeting I had at the premises of my employment, and had witnessed by admittance of my HIV status to Mr. Scott NOTE: In fact, my employer had outlined the importance to him that my ARV medication was the main reason for my viewing medical aid option with him as a broker, and she further outlined that “she would expect him to be forthcoming in sharing all relevant clauses to me, in a way I would have clear understanding of the medical aid he was particularly advising me to join”. I would also like it to be noted that another business owner (D Hattingh) was also present in “ear range” of my employer stating this directly to Mr. Scott. NOTE: Mr. Hattingh has acknowledge that he as well as my employer will gladly provide affidavits in this regard. On my employer viewing all the documentation she immediately noticed that: a. The name and surname of advisor (has been hand written and filled in as – Wayne Du Preez. NOTE: Mr. Wayne Du Preez has never been my advisor – I have never met or had any form of contact with him prior to my visiting his business premises (Du Preez Financial Services at the address listed below. I, together with my employer had gone to talk to Mr. Scott in person at the business premises, and while there we had arranged a meeting to see Mr. Du Preez at 3.30 pm. We informed both Mr Scott and the receptionist which we subsequently learned is the wife of Mr Wayne Du Preez that we would be happy to wait for an hour and half until his return.

b. I met in the presence of my employer with Mr Scott. Both I and my employer outlined the concerns which I strongly viewed as my being “misrepresented by Mr. Scott in his capacity as an employee/reprehensive of Du Preez Financial Services, acting and representing himself as a broker in regards to this Medihelp plan. Mr. Scott is representing himself under the heading – Medical Aid and Gap Cover Specialist. I view these signatures and outlined statement “Name and surname of advisor” as ********** on this contract. I further outline that the relevant information stated above regarding “Question 9 on page 8” was never outlined, nor was I directed by Mr. Scott to overviewed this specific paragraph, neither did he verbally read this paragraph to me, which he had acknowledged with regards to other areas and paragraphs of this contract. I view this as ********** representation on behalf of Mr Scott and Du Preez Financial Serives.