I am puzzled by what two Forum writers went through recently - "Case can do little if a firm doesn't respond" (Jan 3) and "Unsuccessful motor insurance claim because other party did not report accident" (Jan 1).

Does this mean that there is no recourse once police and insurance reports are not made by the other party, or if they resolutely refuse to engage with consumer protection agencies like the Consumers Association of Singapore?

This sounds like a simple and expedient "get-out-of-jail-free" card that can be used by those who know how to exploit this loophole.

As an analogy, if the Singapore Medical Council conducted its business like that, and doctors who refused to cooperate with its investigations on negligence and unprofessional behaviour got away scot-free unless taken to court, everyone would be up in arms and deservedly so - we might as well not bother with patients' rights.

There is no sense of fair play if grievances cannot be addressed simply because the other party does not respond.

The only way to compel them to act appropriately is through legal means.

Shouldn't it be the case that in the event that the other party does not even put up a defence without valid reason, the party putting up the case is judged to have a stronger case with judgment - backed by the full force of the law - passed in his favour?

When the law-abiding are not helped, and others do not need to pay compensation because they deploy ruses, frustration and loss of confidence in the system will ensue.

Yik Keng Yeong (Dr)