Banks are no longer just a place where we park our cash, obtain loans and apply for credit cards.

These days, they offer an extensive range of insurance and investment products such as unit trusts.

This is partly boosted by expensive tie-ups - running into billions of dollars - between banks and insurers to sell insurance products via banking channels, also known as bancassurance.

It is all well and good if the tie-ups lead to happy customers who convert their savings into suitable financial investments that make their money work harder.

But statistics from the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (Fidrec) seem to indicate otherwise.

Between July 1, 2016 and June 30 last year, 44.35 per cent or 396 complaints handled by Fidrec were against banks and finance companies, while 32.36 per cent or 289 complaints were against life insurers.

The bulk of the complaints had to do with disputes over insurance premiums and market conduct issues, including aggressive sales tactics, misrepresentation and inappropriate advice.

The Sunday Times highlights two scenarios on bancassurance provided by Fidrec and also provides a checklist for consumers.

Mr Edmund Wee was at a shopping mall where a bank was holding a roadshow. A personal banker approached him and spoke to him in Mandarin.

She said she was promoting a new "savings plan" with an interest rate higher than that for a fixed deposit, and touted it as a great way to save his money. In addition, there was a free gift of an iPhone for customers who signed up for that plan on the spot. Mr Wee was interested in signing up for the "savings plan", which was, in fact, an insurance policy.

He told her that he had an existing account with her bank. The money was from an inheritance. The personal banker asked him to sign some forms to open the new "savings plan" account, and also to deduct an amount of $10,000 from his savings account. This was to pay for the first-year premium.

Two weeks later, he received a letter and policy documents from an insurance company relating to the policy he had bought.

As Mr Wee did not understand English, he asked his sister to read the documents. She told him he had in fact bought a 10-year insurance policy with an annual premium of $10,000. He was shocked, as he believed he had simply transferred some money from his existing savings account into a new "savings plan" account.

His sister also discovered that there were many errors in the Financial Needs Analysis (FNA).

It inaccurately stated that he had experience in stocks and unit trusts. His income was stated as $3,500 per month, instead of $2,500. Also, his education level was stated as O-level English when it should have been predominantly Chinese education at primary school level.

Mr Wee sought to terminate the policy and get a full refund of the $10,000 premium from the bank. He opted for adjudication, after mediation efforts at Fidrec were unsuccessful.

WHAT MR WEE SAID

At adjudication, he produced documentary evidence of his education level and salary. He said that during the entire sales process, there was no mention of "insurance" and the usual 14-day free look period.

All the necessary hardcopy forms were filled in by the personal banker on his behalf, and he merely signed where she had told him to.

Mr Wee argued he could not have committed to earmarking the $60,000 in his existing account for a 10-year policy that would have required $100,000 in total.

Besides his actual income, the fact that he has a stay-at-home wife and two children in secondary school was material information that indicated his affordability.

WHAT THE BANK SAID

The bank argued that all the necessary sales documents were duly signed by Mr Wee.

In those sales documents, it was stated that the product was a regular premium endowment insurance policy for 10 years, not a savings account.

WHAT THE ADJUDICATOR SAID

The adjudicator found that more likely than not, Mr Wee could not have filled in those hardcopy sales documents on his own, and that some of the important information in the FNA was inflated by the personal banker.

She did not give due consideration to Mr Wee's investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs. Thus, she did not conduct a proper FNA and there was no reasonable basis for her to have recommended him this product.

The adjudicator ruled in favour of Mr Wee, who got back his first-year premium of $10,000.

•Disclaimers: The two cases are fictitious and any resemblance to real-life people or actual cases is unintended and purely coincidental. They are not indicative of adjudication outcomes at Fidrec. Each case is decided based on its own facts, law and evidence. Mrs Aileen Tan went to her bank to open a fixed deposit account with her $20,000. There, a bank officer told her she could get much higher returns with a 10-year insurance policy. Mrs Tan decided to put her $20,000 into that insurance policy, with that sum of money used as her first-year premium.

A few months later, however, she changed her mind, as she needed the money for her son's university education, after "unexpectedly" suffering losses in the stock market.

She went to the bank to terminate the policy and withdraw her $20,000 premium. But the bank told her early termination would result in a zero cash value - that is, she would not get anything back at all.

She filed a claim against the bank at Fidrec and a mediation session was held. When it did not produce an outcome acceptable to both parties, she opted for adjudication.

WHAT MRS TAN SAID

At the adjudication, she alleged that the bank officer had not, at the time of her signing up for the insurance policy, asked her relevant questions such as how much premium she could afford to pay and her investment time horizon.

She also claimed that many questions in the insurance policy forms were filled in by the bank officer, of his own accord, and that she was simply asked to sign on his iPad. Furthermore, she alleged that the bank officer did not explain the contents of those forms before she signed on the iPad.

WHAT THE BANK SAID

The bank argued that its bank officer had asked and documented her budget, investment time horizon and also her risk profile in the Financial Needs Analysis (FNA).

He had taken all these into consideration before recommending the 10-year insurance policy. He had also gone through the contents of the benefit illustration with her, which showed, among other things, the surrender values.

WHAT THE ADJUDICATOR SAID

The adjudicator listened to both parties and looked at the policy documents, including the benefit illustration, product summary and FNA. He concluded, based on the evidence cited, that the bank officer did ask Mrs Tan about her affordability, and had informed her that the insurance policy was for 10 years.

In addition, the bank officer had filled in the various forms for her for opening the policy, based on what she had told that officer. The bank officer had also done a proper FNA for her and she had voluntarily signed all the documents.

Hence, the adjudicator dismissed Mrs Tan's claim and held that she was bound by the terms of her contract or insurance policy.

This means that in her case, she would get zero cash value if she were to terminate her policy prematurely.