Whose Money is it?

The insurance Wikipedia defines it as "fair transfer of the potential risk of a loss of one entity to another, in exchange for a reasonable cost." In other words, the consumer is transferring the risk of a potential loss of an insurance company for a fee, so that when such loss occurs, the insurance company covers it.The insurance company makes its money on the low probability to occur at similar losses Different consumers, and consumers benefit from the protection of sudden loss. In theory, it is an ideal risk-sharing arrangement with a potential win-win for all parties.In India, however, insurance companies have never been known for their willingness to settle claims. Many consumers have found representatives of insurance companies to be insensitive, rude and bureaucratic - who are not familiar with the concept of shared risk and insurance.In what is probably the most shocking consumer case involving an insurance company, National Consumer Redressal Commission had to remind One of the biggest insurance companies in India on the origins of insurance and the need for insurance agents to change their attitude toward claims.Pradeep Krishna had a life policy, which included benefits `accident ', which means that in case of some consumers suffering from permanent disability after an accident and disability affects his ability to work and earn a living, the insurance company would pay him money. The paper quoted insurance policy to various types of accidents and categories of permanent jobs disability.Claim rejectedUnfortunately, Krishna was involved in an accident on a railway leading eventually to be both his arms amputated. As its loss "affected his ability to work and earn a living," he filed a claim. The insurance company immediately rejected the request by saying that the amputation of both arms is not a permanent disability! Krishna filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum. The Forum considered the complaint and the documents found in favour of Krishna. They directed the insurance company to pay the amount promised in the policy. In response, the company appealed to the State Consumer Commission. They lost again.Unwilling to review their "rejection" in the light of orders Forum Consumer / Commission, the company continued to file a new appeal with the National Consumer Redressal. The National Commission was not amused by this attitude of the insurance company. They looked at the policy document in detail and found that since the policy stated that the money would be payable if the disability is permanent and since the list of permanent disability including amputations, the company was clearly wrong and unjustified in the rejection of the National Commission claim.The Then severely punish officers of the insurance company and asked them to change their attitude towards insurance claims. The extreme reluctance on the part of several insurance companies to settle claims is obviously a problem in this sector and which must be tackled urgently. In the absence of an effective system of social security, insurance and banks are often regarded as the only two ways to provide basic social security for citizens. And when these companies start behaving in such a manner insensitive and pathetic, as in the case above, it defeats the very purpose of their existence. These companies need to remember that it's not their money, but ours, and it is their responsibility to create mechanisms that allow consumers to settle claims - quickly, efficiently and fairly.
change management