Good to see this back and very timely. I have had a respirator for the night because I have sleep apnoea. Once it was diagnosed I was referred to the sleep clinic in Bordeaux and had an appointment with a particular specialist for December. Because I was to be seen soon he prescribed the respirator, indeed has even had a series of tests run using a slot in SD card that have been sent on to him. However, the appointment was changed to early February then March. Of course, being an AE the respirator was charged by the supplying company using my Carte Vitale and a bill to RAM. They contacted the specialist who initially did not reply, then when they called his office my name was unknown as a patient so the claim rejected and I received notification without details of whys and wherefores. OK, the specialist has files on me but they are not 'active in the system' so he got it wrong. RAM are being helpful.
In the interim my OH and I went off to the insurance company. The agent is a 'friend' because we have daughters in the same class and circulate in the same social group. So he naturally acted in our favour without question. The company then said 'no claim'. They simply rejected it because RAM had rejected it which, they claim, automatically cancelled out the complimentary claim. They turned down the explanation and would not look at it again. It will probably sort out OK because the supply company have supported the claim and since they have been in touch with the specialist know it is nonsense and RAM listened to them. The insurer refuses and is now saying that because the claim has been rejected they may now not be able to review it. They raised the premium because of my condition and the respirator, so do I get the feeling they are ripping me off? Well, given the agent says they are but it is out of his hands, my conclusion is obvious. We are not well pleased. We need the insurance but is there such a thing as an honest insurance company. Sure, they have forked out for a lot of expensive treatment already but Glen's original point is exactly right nonetheless. If I remember from economic history which I did at A level, albeit it many years ago, insurance was contrived by a group of friends at Loyd's Coffee House in the City of London as a means of earning a lot of money by acting as guarantors for the insured, mainly ship owners and traders then, knowing that a) very few goods imported or ships would actually be lost, and b) they had a lot of exclusion causes that kept them in front. I get the feeling that the guarantor element has been entirely overrun by the latter principle, which is to avoid payouts at all cost without clear reason. In simple terms, a band of rogues!