Twisted truths

'Twisted truths' Funny how the truth very often is twisted in client service. Case study: Miway Insurance. My wife entered into an insurance contract for her vehicle with Miway in Dec 2021. As requested via telephone, she took her vehicle to the designated agent (Glasfit Centurion) for an inspection to activate the insurance cover. Photos were taken and she was satisfied - her vehicle was insured. Two premiums were deducted for Dec 2021 and Jan 2022. On 1 Feb she received a call fro Miway: As no photo's of the vehicle was on record her vehicle was not insured. (Compliments to the MIway administration - they picked it up!) We took the photo's as identified ourselves, forwarded it to Miway, they were satisfied and the vehicle was considered insured as from 1 Feb 2022. But the Miway designated agent omitted to forward the photos taken in Dec 2021 to MIway which resulted in a considerable insurance risk to my wife for the months Dec 2021 and Jan 2022. We thus requested Miway to return her premiums for Dec and Jan because of the omission of their agent and the risk to my wife. Fast forward to 22 Feb 2022: We received a call from Miway employee KM, explained the facts and repeated/motivated our request for a return of the two premiums. He didn't have the authority to make a decision, asked to consult with his manager, kept us on the line for a period and then reported back that his manager turned down our request, His manager TK then immediately took over the conversation, denied that the facts were relaid to him and we had to repeat the sorry tale to him. He then stood by his original decision based on the argument that the vehicle was in fact insured and covered because, if there was a claim in, we as the clients simply could have provided proof that we did in fact visited Glasfit for an inspection/photos. Compliments TK: Shifting the onus to proof that the insurance was in place to the client!! Two funny 'truths' from TK: -on 1 Feb 2022 it was clearly stated by the Miway official that the vehicle was not covered by the insurance. According to TK's logic, the vehicle indeed was covered -on 22 Feb 2022 TK denied that his colleague KM relayed all the facts to resulting in his decision and we had to repeat all the facts to him. (Miway proudly informs you at the beginning of each conversation that the conversation is recorded) If above is an example of how Miway and their managers deals with the truth, would you enter into an insurance contract with Miway?