Unhelpful, inefficient and biased over Miway insurance

One wonder what influences the rejection statistics as reported in the Ombuds annual report...Miway was fewer rejections compared to the rest!!!!! CHECK BELOW FOR AN EYE OPENER!!!

Complain about the pathetic and biased work done by the office of the Ombudsman. Ref R260/17X. I have initially reported the matter to the Ombuds in June 2017 and submitted all relevant documents and responses timeously. My complaint was initially handled by Johan Janse Van Rensburg and he fell sick just at the time he promised to provide me with feedback. This was after several correspondence with both myself and Miway insurance (hereafter referred to as the insurance company). The above happened in October 2017. I was told that he will be out of office for an indefinite period and my complaint was to be re-allocated to someone else who could even start the process from scratch. I immediately requested the matter to be escalated to a senior personal for closure. The senior person to whom the file was escalated to is Darpana Harkison. Despite my initial frustration on how she planned to approach the case I eventually gave in and allowed the process to unfold. Her approach was not to start where Johan left the matter but she mentioned that she had her own approach and she would start from the beginning and that meant going back and listening to the recordings and the correspondence between myself and the insurance company in question. One would assume that Johan would have made notes/summary of the status of the file while he was working on the file to allow for hand over and audit trail should there be a need. Be that as it may Darpana went through the process again and corresponded with the insurance company and formally committed to providing me with feedback by the 29th of November 2017. The 29th went past and still I did not get any correspondence until I formally requested for the update. Fortunately she responded and promised once again that I would get the feedback earlier in the week starting the 5th of December as she was still reviewing the file. To my dismay , over 3 weeks went passed and my attempt to get hold of anyone in the Ombuds’s office were fruitless. On the 19th of December when I called I was told she already went on leave and the only senior person in the office is her PA. I called the PA for an update to no avail until I drove to the office on the 20th of December 2017. To my surprise I met Darpana by the corridors stepping out of the office. Few minutes while I was in the Ombuds’s office waiting for Karinien, Darpana walked back into the office. Few minutes after Darpana walked in, Karinien came out of office where Darpana was and confirmed that I will get a formal response by close of business. I agreed and left the office and the commitment was further confirmed through an email. In the afternoon, I received a letter written by Darpana with extract of the allegations used by the insurance company in repudiating the claim. The details from the letter were mind boggling as it was just allegations from the insurance company without considerations of all my written submissions as a complainant. The letter also appears to conclude that I have not co-operated with the insurance relating to submission of beacons and billings from my employer’s cellphone which is beyond my control. The above is even contrary to the initial conclusion by Darpana that read as follow and this was sent to the insurance company by Darpana: Dear Palesa (Miway Insurance) The above matter refers. As per the insured’s enclosed correspondence, the insured has escalated the matter to the writer hereof. We have perused the file contents and note that the insurer makes reference to an accident reconstruction expert’s report, however, the report has not been provided to this office. We await a copy of the report as a matter of urgency. Further, as per the insured’s enclosed correspondence, the insurer (via it’s attorneys) has addressed a letter of demand to the insured’s employers for the beacons and billings of the insured’s work cellphone. We await your comments with regard to the grounds on which the insurer has requested this information from the insured’s employer, considering that the insured’s employer is not a party to the insurance contract. Our preliminary review of this matter indicates that the insurer has not discharged its onus with regard to the exclusion being re**** on. We await your response hereto in order to finalise our views in this matter. Yours faithfully, Darpana Harkison Senior Assistant Ombudsman

In conclusion:

Almost 6 months went by and it appears that the Ombuds’ office was reluctant to provide me with feedback despite numerous attempt in trying to get feedback.

One is also left wondering due to the hesitant manner and one sided approach if there isn’t anything going on behind closed door.

As a result of the above the office has not delivered on it’s mandate of being fair and unbiased and it took six (6) months to come to such conclusion.

Above all how convenient for the Ombuds's office to respond on the last day of the year and leave office immediately after!!!