My colleague and I signed up for the UOB Life Maxi Annuity (Single Premium) Plan that offered an annual interest rate of 2.5 per cent on a single premium with a penalty clause for termination within the first year at UOB Main on Jan 18, and presented our cheques for the premiums on Jan 24.

To our annoyance, we received on Jan 29 two letters from UOB Life Assurance dated the same day, one advising us that our applications had been unsuccessful and the other, not to tender our cheques to the bank.

I immediately called up the personal banker who sold us the product and she was equally surprised. As she was away on vacation, she had one of her colleagues to call me the next day.

I was told the bank had stopped the product as it has reached its target of $200 million and therefore cannot take in any more customers. She also insisted that enrolment to the product is subject to offer and acceptance.

I refused to accept the reasons and her supervisor called me the following day to reiterate the bank's decision. She added that the product was introduced for about a week with a slow start and by the morning of Jan 18, the bank was so overwhelmed by the response that senior management stopped it at 9am. The reasons are unacceptable.

1) I considered UOB's acceptance of our enrolments on Jan 18 and cheques on Jan 24 (ahead of their due date Jan 31) a done deal. This is not a health-linked insurance product where, understandably, the vendor could reject an application on grounds of the applicant's medical conditions, but a straightforward no frail annuity saving product.

2) At no time during our two transactions with the personal banker were we told of the bank's decision that the programme had ceased at 9am on Jan 18. Our two transactions were done during our lunch break.

3) As a consumer, I am not interested in the bank's internal problems such as an over-subscribed product. I was introduced a product, convinced by it, bought into it and paid up the premiums only to be told I am rejected. This is unfair practice to me.

4) I also cannot accept that with technology such as e-mail, an important business decision made by the bank's senior management was not conveyed to their network of personal bankers to stop them from taking in any more new businesses. If this was done, the Personal Banker would have rejected our cheques on Jan 24 and the bank's rejection letters dated Jan 29 would not have carried a message to ask me not to tender my cheque.

Although the supervisor who called offered a 2.5 per cent interest on the returned premium for the days that the cheque was with the bank as a form of service recovery effort, I still feel my rights have been violated. This is unexpected from one of the largest operating banks in Singapore.

Lee Pai Ping (Ms)