In reality, we have courts of bricks and mortar, then we have courts of public opinion.
In terms of public relations, the health and insurance group Momentum was in an unenviable spot.
Momentum found itself under the spotlight when it declined to pay out R2.4million to the family of Nathan Ganas, a 42-year-old who died in a hijacking, saying that he failed to disclose that he had elevated blood glucose levels when he took out his life policy in 2014.
We know that too much sugar in the blood is not good. That is why a number of countries, including South Africa, have introduced sugar tax to encourage consumers to cut down.
High blood sugar levels, or hyperglycaemia, is a risky condition that can lead to a range of unpleasant diseases such as diabetes, pancreatitis, hyperthyroidism or Cushing’s syndrome (elevated blood cortisol level).
There’s also the dangers of triglycerides, a risk factor for heart disease.
Ganas’s family says Momentum did only an HIV test before signing him on, and that he’d never had any health issues.
Last March, Ganas was killed in a hail of bullets trying to protect his wife Denise during a hijacking outside their Shallcross, Durban, home.
His family lodged a claim, safe in the knowledge that his policy was up to date.
Momentum, like all life insurers, launched its investigation upon receiving the claim. However, Ganas’s claim was declined by the insurer on the grounds that he had not disclosed that he was diagnosed with raised blood sugar levels when he completed his application for the policy in 2014.
The decision to reject the claim sparked public ire, quite understandably. Momentum has come across as having conducted a witch-hunt for an excuse not to pay.
The post-mortem has shown that Ganas succumbed to bullet wounds, not high blood sugar levels.
As lay people, we don’t see why the company dug up the medical history of the policy holder, which are unrelated to the cause of death.
The questions that public opinion wanted answered are:
Why do insurance companies not carry out comprehensive medical screening prior to issuing a life policy, especially for such a high cover?
If the policyholder did not die of a condition that he did not disclose, in this case high blood sugar levels, why was the claim initially denied?
The widow says Ganas was not aware of his health status, and was therefore not cheating.
Momentum initially rubbed salt into the wound when it demanded a R50 000 payment it made to the family to cover funeral costs.
Last night, sanity prevailed: Momentum relented and in a statement on its website announced it would honour Ganas’s multimillion-rand policy.
If it hadn’t, I’m sure another insurance company would have capitalised on the outpouring of public support and paid out part of the claim to the widow. It would have been a brilliant marketing coup - with rich rewards in the long run.
Well done, Momentum.
Makgabutlane is an assistant editor at The Star.