I am soon to undertake a 14 day trip to northern China and I have slight angina. I therefore had to arrange travel insurance and these are the results.
Norwich Union £28.16
Direct Line £116.00
Tesco £122.00
Lunn Poly £69.00
T. Cooke £65.00
Travel Co. own ins. £90.00
N.U. is slightly cheaper because I insure my house and contents through them but even so their top rate was only £35.00.
Because I felt it was far too cheap, peanuts and monkeys sprang to mind, I rang them three times and each time I was assured, that yes, this was their price and could I recommend them to others.
So, if you are on your travels, give them a ring.
|
Peter,
I bank through Lloyds TSB and get TI free for all the family with a Platinum account. You get free AA as well.
|
|
|
Sounds good. Also sounds like NU are being realistic and seeing your slight angina as slight angina, rather than imminent risk of death.
Good news that there is a sensible company out there!
|
|
|
Just be careful here by taking down all names/dates/times of people you spoke to at NU. Ask them to confirm in writing that either your angina has been noted as of no concern or that it is noted as an existing condition excluded from cover.
The reason for this caution: Mr X took out annual policy, declared that he suffered from Hay Fever for which he took regular medication. Insurer said "don't worry, it is minor and does not affect policy". When later a claim was made due to severe allergic reaction to food, initially the insurer said this was not covered because the "hay fever" was not on the records. When evidence (phone bills) was found to back up conversations, insurer said OK but the illness is related to hay fever (i.e. allergy) and hence an existing condition and so not covered. No pay out in the end!
I will quote a simialr story from D. Tel "Jessica Investigates" below:
>>>> " In July 2000 we booked a cruise to coincide with a friend's 65th birthday. Three days before departure he was admitted to hospital as an emergency, suffering from kidney stones. The insurance company has refused to pay out because it claims his previous medical history precluded him from cover.
We have had an annual policy in our joint names for years. The earlier medical problems, which were dealt with, did not cause, directly or indirectly, the kidney stones. His doctor was unaware of the underlying problem and did not advise against the cruise, which the doctor knew about.
Despite several written and telephoned requests, XXX Insurance will not fully explain its reasons for refusal. Could I please ask for your assistance?
MF, East Sussex
The insurer was categoric that it would not pay and that it had said its last word on the matter. I approached it and pointed out that there seemed to be some crossed wires. It was agreed that it would approach your doctor again for further clarification. Then XXX Insurance asserted that the doctor was not answering its questions properly and indeed was slow in giving any answers at all.
For the record, the doctor had written: "I am quite frankly amazed that you have not settled this chap's claim for the following reasons:
"At the time the insurance was purchased he was fit to travel. The sole cause of cancellation of the travel was an emergency admission."
The doctor went on to add there had been no prior history of the complaint, which he described in detail. But the insurer says it wanted the doctor to substantiate facts rather than give opinions.
Week in and week out for six months, I spoke to my contact at XXX Insurance and kept you informed of the little progress that was being made. Now, reams of correspondence after you made your claim, the insurer says it will act. It says it doubts that the doctor will ever answer its questions satisfactorily and agrees with me that you should not suffer because of this.
At last, the £3,504 claim is being met. A recurring theme that comes up is that doctors are perceived by insurers investigating claims as not providing all the details required. Understandably enough, more bureaucracy is the last thing a conscientious general practitioner needs when the priority is patients who require urgent attention.
Many patients, including yourself, are embarrassed to pester a busy doctor about filling in forms - particularly when paperwork has already been completed, albeit not in the way the insurer would like.
Money is usually not the issue for the doctor who has only so many hours in the day and is stretched to the limit by needy patients. I cannot come up with a solution to this dilemma but it is an issue that insurers may need to address. " >>>
|
|
|
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/fallback/coming-soon.jpg)
