Watchdog and Abbey Life


…successful outcome 15 months after an initial claim rejection…on grounds to allege prior symptoms that demonstrated a pre-existing condition.


…absolutely unrealistic to imagine that such a tumour could be detected at its inception or early years since it could never even be suspected.


…observations of unknown origin begin to manifest might an investigation begin…


…nuisances would not necessarily warrant investigation.


…introduced benign brain tumour from January 1996 (along with 10 other conditions) as a specific critical illness condition as an endorsement…


…undisclosed "reason" for a rejection of claim was that prior symptoms allegedly demonstrated the existence of a specifically benign brain tumour before the endorsement was added…


…claimed by Managing Director to be Sept 1995 [14 months before actual diagnosis]


…absence of an MRI scan, this is patently impossible. There would be nothing to implicate a brain tumour. No biopsy. No evidence whatsoever. Even then (and now) this tumour has only been seen on MRI scans.


…investigation by a neurologist was October 1996. The actual diagnosis was November 1996.


…alleged prior symptoms have never been declared by Abbey Life. So the reason for the claim refusal has never been divulged.


…basis for claim rejection.


…allows nearly all the other endorsement conditions to be similarly refused for groundless reasons that never need to be declared…




…difficult dealings with the GMC that may be of interest especially in view of the infamous Harold Shipman affair. I challenged the GMC and double standard of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and the conflicting loyalty to profession and to an employer.


…kept in the dark for some four months…that pressure in the office prevented a quicker response


…retired quietly before any claims by me were investigated. They never have been investigated.


…asked for the signatures of the two screeners as verification that these two people existed. This was refused on the grounds that they cannot enter into correspondence with me. I never asked for that. Simply, verification and validation to support the claim that they were involved.


…clear that no such screen ever took place.


…Guiding Doctors, Protecting Patients should be reversed to state Protecting Doctors, Guiding Patients - this is more appropriate.


…from middle October 1998 to end March 1999.


Back to The Arguments