I thank NTUC Income's Mr Peh Chee Keong for his reply ("Zero tolerance for fraudulent, inflated claims"; Nov 6). But a few points bear clarification.
First, I did not willingly agree to any payout, as I was trying to prevent Income from paying out a possibly fraudulent claim. But I was told that if I did not agree to its proposed settlement amount, I would have to represent myself in court to take up the case further.
Not wanting to take over the case myself, I had no choice but to agree with whatever payout Income had decided on.
Second, Mr Peh said I was offered a motor insurance renewal at the standard premium rate.
Before the accident, my insurance premium was $800, but after the accident, it went up to $1,400, even after the 20 per cent no-claim discount (NCD).
I have tried to obtain quotes from various other insurance companies, but was told that since a claim had been made against me, there will be a loading on my future premiums. Does that not make me "blacklisted as a bad risk"?
As the accident was very minor, I did try negotiating with the other party, as I did not want to lose my 50 per cent NCD, but the other party was very unreasonable and wanted an exorbitant amount from me.
From the very outset, I had informed Income many times that the other party would be trying to inflate the claim.
I submitted photos taken after the accident, which supported my contention that there was no damage to both vehicles.
Moreover, how could my vehicle have caused so much damage to the other party's vehicle if there was no damage to mine to warrant any insurance claim?
I appreciate Mr Peh's stand of zero tolerance for fraudulent claims but he still did not address my question: Must insurers pay out claims even if a vehicle is not damaged?
The insurer would not have disagreed with me if it had reviewed the photos I sent them.
Jimmy Lauw Thian Chye