THE OMBUDSMAN for financial service, Bill Prasifka, said last night his office would study carefully the High Court’s decision in the case brought by Honore Kennedy.
Mr Prasifka said he would implement the court’s decision, both in terms of any consequences for his office and in relation to the details of the case.
He pointed out that Ms Kennedy’s case was decided in 2007, before the office changed its procedures after losing a separate court case brought by Davy Stockbrokers. “We have different procedures in place now as a result of that judgment,” he said.
The ombudsman at the time of both cases, Joe Meade, retired last Christmas and was replaced by Mr Prasifka in April.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld a High Court finding that the ombudsman failed to adhere to fair procedures in how the complaint against Davy was processed and directed him to rehear it in accordance with the procedures necessary to ensure fairness. The court ruled that the ombudsman was required to act speedily and was not required to mimic court procedures.
Both Davy and Ms Kennedy complained in their respective cases about the failure of the ombudsman to grant an oral hearing and about the conduct of matters by the ombudsman and his deputy.
Ms Kennedy said yesterday she was overjoyed at the court’s decision, which came over five years after she and her partner Andrew Pearn took out a joint life assurance policy on a € 100,000 mortgage on their house in Ardfert, Co Kerry, and three years after she lodged a complaint with the financial ombudsman’s office.
She expressed disappointment with the then ombudsman, Mr Meade, for relying on information from the life assurance company, Friends First Life, in making his decision.
In the case, Ms Kennedy complained to the ombudsman over Friends First’s refusal to pay out on the policy after Mr Pearn died in October 2005 from carbon monoxide poisoning due to the inhalation of car exhaust fumes. The company argued that Mr Pearn had failed to disclose details of his medical condition at the time the policy was proposed.
The ombudsman based his decision on a review of the finding made by his deputy and he argued that he was required by law to act in an informal manner.
The case highlights the importance of filling out medical forms correctly and comprehensively when applying for life assurance. In this case, the form was filled out by a tied insurance agent of Friends First. While the company claimed material information had not been included in the form by Mr Pearn, Ms Kennedy argued that health-related information she had provided to the agent had not been included in the completed form.
