During May 1986 to April 1994, AIA sold about 110,000 life insurance policies of financial guardian and whole life.
Starting from 2003, AIA has been using a misleading process to supersede its original policy quotation (OPQ) of these policies by irrelevant options, which are completely different from OPQ. AIA calls OPQ as BI (benefit illustration). The process will end in 2014.
AIA made a very big lie to affect policy holders that AIA does not keep OPQ of affected policies. However, AIA keeps OPQ of all affected policies and hides them.
The document of FAQS ON AIA CRITICAL YEAR SUPPORT PROGRAM at http://www.aia.com.sg/pdf/faqs_cyo.pdf is a contradictive, confusing, frustrating and misleading document.
The very serious wrongdoings by AIA on the dispute:
(1) AIA hides OPQ of all affected policies and claimed that AIA does not keep them because the industry regulatory requirement did not require AIA to file a copy of OPQ at that time. Is the logic ridiculous?
Without OPQ, nobody knows what OPQ specified, promised, and explained.
However, AIA does keep OPQ. AIA lied to all affected policy holders. If AIA does not keep OPQ, how can AIA know the critical year (CY) of each affected policy? AIA has the responsibility to provide OPQ and fulfil what OPQ promised to the customer. AIA made a big lie!!!
(2) AIA disclaims OPQ of affected policies. When I found that the options are irrelevant to OPQ, AIA explained that AIA disclaims OPQ because the industry standards were not in place at the time when it was given. Is the logic ridiculous? Can you believe that AIA made such kind of excuse!!!
(3) AIA modifies customer’s policy data (critical year) in order not to admit my OPQ. AIA used every excuse not to admit my OPQ and disclaims my OPQ. I think that AIA did not admit any OPQ (I do not know what excuse AIA might use). Otherwise, it is contradictive to the disclaimer of OPQ.
On the other hand, I do believe that AIA admitted some. Contradictive!!!
(4) AIA told me that my CY is 15 while it is actually 16. AIA dared to lie with its bad intention!!!
(5) AIA expressed that AIA would use OPQ to assess the options for a policy. But, the options for my policy are irrelevant to OPQ. AIA is contradictive!!!
(6) AIA provides wrong explanations on OPQ and critical year. AIA mislead the dispute as critical year issue. In fact, AIA does not want to fulfil what OPQ promised to the customer. AIA wants to use irrelevant options to supersede OPQ. The explanations AIA made today are very complicated, contradictive, confusing and misleading. They are not based on OPQ.
(7) AIA has been using a very contradictive, confusing, frustrating and misleading process to supersede OPQ of affected policies by irrelevant options.
Above are some of my findings. Details can be found at http://aiainsurancedispute.blogspot.com.
AIA called the dispute between the difference of OPQ and the options as critical year issue. But, it is actually not. The difference is extremely huge. The policy values offered by options for an insured amount of S$200K could be much less than half of what OPQ promised at the 30th policy year.
Logically, the dispute should be resolved according to OPQ. It is not correct that AIA uses irrelevant options to supersede OPQ.
You may tell the people you know. They may be affected by the dispute.
AIA life insurance dispute critical year issue business sell sold money profit loss high risk purchase buy AIA Singapore loss