Thursday, October 05, 2006

I've left my body to science, but I'm afraid they've turned it down

Just going through a series of motions at the moment regarding an insurance company that shall remain nameless (and faceless would seem thats how they prefer it) regarding old injuries and policy coverage.

It seems that said company will not realise the futility and stupidity of their own actions in their stubborn refusal to remove a certain exclusion from a policy I hold.

I put to you the following precis:
Injury to certain joint, ten years ago, 100% recovery, results in exclusion to policy from condition arising from said joint.
Current physio for TOTALLY UNRELATED condition.
Request previous exclusion removal as condition no longer applicable.
Said company refuses on grounds that "you are undergoing treatment, regardless of area or joint affected, so we shall not remove exclusion."

Yes, yes, I see, it all makes sense now! You're recovered, but something else has happened, so we'll ignore that and concentrate on the healed injury instead! We're geniuses! Or are we genii?

No, you're an irrational, large, international corporation.

'nuff said.

Insert tagline here.


zzzpirate said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
zzzpirate said...

previous comment with grammatical ammendments------------------

Really witty headline! If Darren Hinch read this he would say SHAME, SHAME, SHAME! as a former market researcher (company shall remain nameless) I was asked to do a survey for a well known health insurance provider and I must say the resulting feedback from thier clientele base was shameful! In some of the surveys done we were allowed to ask if the survey respondents wanted follow-up from the involved company (the company did not want to do any follow-up with their respondants!)

The Great White Hype said...

Ar yes sleepy parrot being familiar with the works of Idle, Palin, Cleese, Chapman, Jones, Gilliam, et al, will realise the origin of said headline.

As for the follow-up from unmentionable company in question, they did not take it upon themselves to check wether or not said exclusion should still be valid at any time over the last 10 years. Perhaps this should not surprise.