not yet implement this rules

of course. you can simply visit any branch of the insurer and ask them to insure you direct. agent comission will be given to you in the form of a discount. comission is high: general insurance 15% of the annual premium (every!!! year), PA its even 25% percent. why throw money down the drain like that?

which company allow that as nowday?
pls list down here

u sure? interested to know too..

every insurance company will do so. i am running every single one of my insurances as a direct customer and they all give the agent comission as a discount. comission varies depending on your insurance (i.e. car: 10%, general insurance like medical 15%, PA 25%, householder 15%, houseowner 15% etc.). Just insist you dont to insure through agent or go to insurance branch. a couple of years ago you had to insist on getting a discount due to no agent but nowadays they all straight away give. i have not come across an insurance which doesnt give the discount.

so which insurance company did u buy directly and get discount?

since 2004 (not using them all at the moment, we have changed some polices throughout the years): axa, allianz, mcis, tokio marine, msig, AIA, prudential,etiqua, ACE, Berjaya Sompo, Pacific Insurance, uni asia. i doubt any company would refuse the discount if you ask them. the above list is where i personally have received the discount for motor/health/PA/house and some other policies.

Is the discount same with all company? referring to health and PA policy

yes all general insurance products get 15% of the annual premium, all PA covers have 25% and all auto policies get 10% discount.

you can check for yourself by asking any of your insurances to move an existing policy to "direct" upon renewal. you will get the renewal notice with the stated discount (if you dont remind them, as mentioned for the last 3,4 yrs i dont have to remind them anymore - once discount is given you never need to "remind" them anymore.)

I can confirm the auto policy 10% discount. Walk in into etiqa/ qoute from bike shop who sells insurance.

Roystevenung mentioned that the insurer may contest to the claim if the claim is ambiguos if it was within the contestibility period. Does that mean that after the contestibility period, if the claim is due to a pre-existing condition not declared by insured, then insurer still have to pay the claim?

This post has been edited by Matilda C.: Jul 29 2014, 03:58 AM

No. If there is clear evidence that the case is a pre existing prior to policy inception even if it had surpassed the incontestable period, the policy may be null and void.

Please take note that for a pre-existing condition, i.e., a condition that has manifested itself before the policy is issued is forever not payable.

However, on the validity of the policy beyond the two years contestable period, such condition will be reviewed on case to case basis. For example, if a person has mild hypertension before taking up the policy and did not disclose it during the application, and after two years make a claim, then the claim is not payable on basis that the hypertension was a pre-existing condition, at the same time whether the insurance company can cancel the policy from inception depends on the severity of the illness not disclosed in order to establish the intent of fraud.

This is because according to Sec. 147 sub-sec (4) of the Insurance Act 1996, it reads, "A licensed life insurer shall not dispute the validity of a life policy after the expiry of two years from the date on which it was effected on the ground that a statement made or omitted to be made in the proposal for insurance or in a report of a doctor, referee, or any other person, or in a document leading to the issue of the life policy, was inaccurate or false or misleading unless the licensed life insurer shows that the statement was on a material matter or suppressed a material fact and that it was fraudulently made or omitted to be made by the policy owner."

This post has been edited by zest168: Jul 29 2014, 02:55 PM

Thanks for your reply, Zest & Roystevenung.

There is a news stating there was a son sued insurance company over death benefits. The insurance company denied to pay death claim of a mother who died of heart attack, claiming that she has pre-existing condition of anemia and did not disclose it to the insurer. Nevertheless, the death has nothing to do with anemia - it's due to heart attack. And the son stated the mother did not go for medical checkup hence did not aware she had anemia (not fraudulent undisclosure). Therefore, if the claim is not related to the undisclosed pre-existing condition, should the insurance company proceed to pay the claim to the insured/nominee?

For example, if the pre-existing condition not disclosed is hypertension, but the insured is diagnosed with cancer. Will/should the insurance company proceed to pay the claim?

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/...death-benefits/

Life Insurance policy is a legal contract enforceable by law. As in any contract, it is bound by its terms and conditions, hence any breach in the contract will render it null and void.

Firstly, the insurance company must have concrete evidence supported by a medical report from the insured's attending physician over the diagnosis of anaemia. Whether the doctor explained to the patient about the condition or not is really between the patient and doctor. As far as the medical report concerned, it would be stated that a diagnosis of anaemia was made on ddmmyyyy. Unless the doctor clearly wrote in the medical report that he/ she did not tell the patient about the diagnosis, then the nominee may have a case, but I doubt so the doctor would write such medical report.

Now, the diagnosis of anaemia which was a pre-existing condition, but the insured in fact died of heart attack, which is not related to anaemia. Question is whether is this fair? Did insurance company cheat? Let's go back to the basis of contract.

The insurer issued the policy based on utmost good faith. However, the diagnosis of anaemia was not disclosed. Whether such non disclosure was intentional or not is secondary, the fact remained it was not disclosed. If such condition of anaemia was disclosed during application, would the insurer still issue the policy as applied for? In the case of anaemia, usually the insurer will ask for the underlying cause of anaemia, if such underlying cause was not found, they would have postponed the application until the cause is known. So, if this fact was disclosed during application, the insurer would not have simply issued the policy as applied. We may not know the final outcome because there are many dependencies after that.

Assuming the best case scenario, the anaemia was nothing sinister as the insured just recovered from dengue fever two weeks ago. Then the policy would have been issued at standard rate.

The medium case scenario, the anaemia was due to low iron in the blood. Hence, the insurer need to charge a higher premium and/ or impose loading on medical card (if any). The insurer counter offer this to the insured, depending on the insured whether to take it up or not, hence there are two outcome - accept the counteroffer or reject it.

Worst case scenario, the anaemia was due to cancer. Obviously, application would be declined right away by the insurer.

Therefore, as long as any material non disclosure affecting the original decision of the insurer in issuing the policy, the contract will become null and void from inception. Now, whether the insured subsequently passed away due to heart attack or even an accident, is irrelevant.

Bottomline is, better to tell all the truth, nothing but the truth on utmost good faith.

中国最著名的理财规划师刘彦斌认为：有钱人理财的最重要的原则是守财，而不是生财！守财最好的方式是储蓄和保险。

其实我们赚这么多钱，最重要的是想办法把赚到的钱留下来，留到未来或者留给孩子。但是万一以后经济形势变化或者企业经营遇到问题，谁也无法保证这些资产能不能保全下来。

根据法律规定，人寿保险金是不受“债权债务”干扰的个人资产，是帮您保全资产的最有力工具。在您现在生意好的时候，及时存一部分钱到保险账户里，在企业资产和家庭资产中间筑起一道防火墙，以后万一企业经营遇到什么问题，只有保险赔付金是不能用来还债的，法院也不能冻结和查封这笔钱。所以国外有很多大公司的老板在企业遇到经济危机倒闭后，都是借助保险理赔金继续享清福，或者东山再起。

所以香港的李嘉诚说：“别人都说我很富有，拥有很多财富，其实真正属于我个人的财富，是为自己和家人购买了充足的人寿保险。”他认为一旦遇到经济危机企业出现问题，其它所有资产都可能被变卖、冻结、查封，只有保险是真正属于他和家庭的财产。

另外，因为人寿保险的理赔和给付完全免税，也可以用这种方式把您的资产完整地转移给下一代。

人们经常说富不过三代、打江山容易守江山难。就算您把资产提前都转移给孩子，您能保证他能帮您守好这些资产吗？万一遇到国家政策或者经济危机、或者他经营不善，企业经营出现问题怎么办？而且，一次性给他一大笔资产，可能因种种原因随时被消耗掉，这样的风险相信您也知道。

现在大部分保险公司都有一款终身年金保险，可以让您和您的孩子每年都能领到一笔钱，一直到终身。而不是一次性给一大笔钱让他花掉。其实这就是一种财务制度的安排，用法律合同的方式确保孩子一辈子都有钱，一辈子衣食无忧。

No such thing. Premium is the same

Usually there's ex gratia payment

There WILL be such a thing.

This will be under Life Insurance and Family Takaful Framework

The idea is to have commission-free pure protection products sold via direct channel. Those are who are more financial savvy and can manage their own insurance without being serviced by an agent can go via this route in future. However, when this can really happen is still an unknown.

Here’s a piece of news by The Edge which will give a summary on this framework. Obviously the agents are not gonna be too please.

The Edge

Just like advent of Fundsupermart iritating UT seller, the future Insurancemart will iritate insurance agent... problem still with claiming and representation